Sitting of 16 February 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRAYERS
  PRIVATE BUSINESS

    CITY OF LONDON(WARD ELECTIONS) BILL (By Order)
    Order for further consideration, as amended, read.
    To be further considered on Wednesday 1 March.

Oral Answers to Questions
  WALES
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  WALES

    Climate Change Levy
    Mr. Christopher Gill: What recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary with regard to the climate change levy. [108908]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary weekly and we discuss a range of issues. However, lead responsibility on the climate change levy as a tax measure lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the responsibility for negotiated agreements lies with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
    Mr. Gill: Will the right hon. Gentleman assure the House that he will make the strongest representations to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to persuade him that, if he goes on imposing stealth taxes on our industries, he will make them uncompetitive? Is it the right hon. Gentleman's intention to do that to important industries ranging from aluminium to horticulture, and to treat them as he has treated the pig industry and see them go into terminal decline?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the National Assembly for Wales has a responsibility in those matters. It contacted 20 major energy users and businesses in Wales, and they expressed general support for the aims of the levy.
    Mr. Barry Jones: I thank my right hon. Friend for agreeing to visit Shotton steelworks in the near future. When he meets my steelworker constituents, they will tell him of their great interest in the levy. Does he agree that our steel industry faces considerable competition overseas and that the scale and nature of the levy, and the way in which it is pitched, organised and
    932
    assessed, are of great importance for employment in the industry throughout Britain? Does he agree also that this great steelworks is the scene of much productivity and success? There will be a warm welcome for him when he visits my constituency soon.
    Mr. Murphy: I very much look forward to visiting my right hon. Friend's constituency a week on Friday, I think, and particularly to visiting Shotton. I assure him that his points about the steel industry are very well made.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins: Was not the Minister's reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) disingenuous in the extreme? The Government have committed themselves to the levy and, after the embarrassment that they have suffered in the past week on Welsh Assembly matters, I should have thought that the last thing that the Minister would want to say is that this is all down to the Welsh Assembly. Why does not he accept that the responsibility lies with him and his colleagues to make sure that no more stealth taxes hit British industry?
    Mr. Murphy: Welsh questions is not the place to raise those general matters when I was dealing with a specific question asked of me in my capacity as Secretary of State for Wales. The hon. Gentleman must understand that devolution means devolution.

    National assembly (Budget)
    Mr. Jon Owen Jones: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the budget for the National Assembly for Wales for 2000–01. [108909]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the Assembly First Secretary weekly to discuss a range of issues.
    Mr. Jones: When my right hon. Friend next meets the First Secretary, will he convey my heartfelt congratulations on his appointment, and those of my constituents? Will he tell the First Secretary that the overwhelming majority of my constituents share Labour's priorities and that they will be delighted to hear of the increases in the Assembly budget for next year, in particular the 7.5 per cent. increase in the money that can be spent on health and social services and the more than 10 per cent. increase in money for education? My constituents will be delighted with that expenditure increase, and I hope that he will convey those thoughts to the new First Secretary.
    Mr. Murphy: I will indeed convey those thoughts to the new First Secretary in Cardiff. Everybody in Wales will be grateful for the emphasis that the National Assembly budget has put on education and health. It is important for Members of this House to understand that the National Assembly is a new institution; that the people of Wales voted for devolution, and that we wish the new First Secretary well, as indeed did all parties, including the Conservatives, when they met yesterday to ensure that my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) was made First Secretary. We ought also

    933
    to put on record our thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) for the way that he worked in establishing the Assembly.
    Mr. Richard Livsey: Does not the new First Secretary have a keen interest in private business and a clear understanding of its operation? We hope that matters relating to objective 1 match funding will be included in the budget, as well as projects that will be pursued to obtain objective 1 moneys for the poorest parts of Wales. Will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the private sector is fully engaged in that process so that new initiatives can be taken for job creation in Wales for the benefit of the people in those poor areas?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman has a good point. He will be aware that the First Secretary was—indeed, as far as I am aware, still is—the Assembly Secretary on economic and European matters. As such, he has spent a great deal of time in the past month dealing with the issue. I very much appreciate the hon. Gentleman's points, particularly on the schemes for objective 1 funding, and especially those concerning small and medium-sized businesses.
    Sir Raymond Powell: When my right hon. Friend next talks to the First Secretary, will he remind him that this House decides the expenditure given to Wales? Given that, as I understand it, we are proposing an increase of £474 million in the Welsh Assembly's budget, we do not want in 12 months' time to witness again the scene in the Assembly last week. Opposition Assembly Members, particularly Plaid Cymru and perhaps the Liberals, should be reminded that we in this House decide on the money and that, therefore, we shall still have some control over what we grant to them.
    Mr. Murphy: My hon. Friend is right when he says that the people of Wales and, indeed, Members of this House, would not want a regular repeat performance of what occurred in Cardiff last week. I think that everybody would agree that, first, Wales needs stability in the three years remaining of the Assembly's term, and, secondly, the Assembly should deliver the services affecting people's lives, such as eduction and the health service, with which the devolution settlement charged it. He is also right in saying that this House of Commons determines the block grant, although I am sure he would agree that distribution of that grant in Wales is a matter for colleagues in the National Assembly.
    Mr. Nigel Evans: This is the first Welsh questions since the "fun and games" in the Welsh Assembly last week, as the Prime Minister called it. We wish the hon. Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) well in his new position. At least he is unlike his predecessor, the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), who was like a puppet on a string. We hope that those strings have been cut well and firmly.
    In his discussions with the new First Secretary, what representations has the Secretary of State received about objective 1 status funding?
    Mr. Murphy: Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman's party in Cardiff warmly welcomed my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, West (Mr. Morgan) as the new First Secretary.
    934
    The hon. Gentleman's colleagues in Cardiff might have been a little more generous about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael) has worked.
    The hon. Gentleman will be aware that we have entered the spending review on objective 1 status. It will take place between now and July, and concern matters of high importance to Wales. We shall continue to work here in government on that spending review.
    Mr. Evans: The Secretary of State will be aware that it is not only politicians who are interested in what is going on with objective 1 status. For instance, CyberCall in Cardigan stated this week that it was appalled at the antics of politicians and that all that it is interested in is ensuring that sufficient funds are made available so that Wales wins objective 1 status. We are talking about 400 jobs going to one of the most disadvantages areas of Wales. Given that the Prime Minister said that he would not let Wales down, will the Secretary of State assure companies such as CyberCall, and the people of Wales, that they will receive match funding, so that jobs can go to the most disadvantaged areas of Wales?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman will know that, in all the years that his Government dealt with structural funding, they had to go through the process. He will also be aware that, in this very House of Commons a week or so ago, the right hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury, poured scorn on structural funding and said that we should not have it at all in this country. The hon. Gentleman must make up his mind whether he wants objective 1 funding.

    Children in Care
    Ms Julie Morgan: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary about children in care in Wales. [108911]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has regular discussions with the First Secretary, and I have had discussions with Jane Hutt, the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary, about children in care. Following the publication yesterday of the North Wales child abuse report, we will, of course, be discussing with the Assembly, in the coming weeks and months, the report and the recommendations that it contains.
    Ms Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his reply. Will he assure the House that every means will be used in the legislative process to ensure that a children's commissioner for Wales is set up; that the commissioner's remit will cover every aspect of children's lives, and all children, including children in care; and that the necessary legislation will not preclude any children in Wales?
    Mr. Hanson: I welcome my hon. Friend's commitment to a children's commissioner in Wales and her campaigning work on that. She knows that the Labour party went into the Assembly election with a commitment to establish a children's commissioner, as did other parties. We now await considered Assembly deliberations on the role and scope of the children's commissioner.

    935
    In due course, the Government, through the ministerial task force, will examine the Assembly's recommendations and those of Sir Ronald Waterhouse. I hope to make an announcement shortly.
    Mr. Robert Walter: The House was appalled yesterday at the report by Sir Ronald Waterhouse. As a member of the Select Committee on Health looking into abuse of child migrants, I know from personal experience how harrowing it is to take evidence from the victims of child abuse.
    The House will welcome the tight deadline set for locating the 28 missing child abusers, but can the Under-Secretary assure the House that, if those individuals have not been located by the deadline, he will make available the extra resources needed to carry out a search? Can he also assure the House that, if the abusers are employed in local authority child care posts, he will not tolerate any concealment or cover-up by those authorities—as happened in Clwyd—to protect the interests of insurance companies?
    Mr. Hanson: As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Department of Health and the National Assembly today issued a list of names to local authorities and health authorities in England and Wales, to ensure that, by 5 pm tomorrow in the case of the Department of Health and by 5 pm on Friday in the case of the National Assembly, all those names have been checked against employees. That has been done to protect children who are potentially at risk because those people may be working in local authorities and health authorities. Matters of resources are for the Department of Health and the National Assembly, but the hon. Gentleman can be assured that the Government intend to protect children. We will take the necessary action vigorously, and we will ensure that the recommendations are examined vigorously also.

    Health Service (Financing)
    Mr. Ted Rowlands: When he next expects to meet the First Secretary to discuss the financing of the health service in Wales. [108912]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State regularly meets the First Secretary to discuss a range of issues affecting Wales, including health matters, and I have regular meetings with the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary. The issues discussed, of course, include the funding of the NHS in Wales, but any decision on the allocation of health funding within Wales is a matter for the National Assembly.
    Mr. Rowlands: When my hon. Friend meets the First Secretary, will he underline the deep concern felt in north Glamorgan about the state of our acute health services and the fact that we have not been able to make key consultant appointments? Is he aware that Bro Taff is claiming that it has a projected deficit of £18 million and therefore cannot make such improvements? Given the large amount
    936
    of extra resources to be put into the health service, will he make sure that those resources go to the communities suffering the greatest need and deprivation?
    Mr. Hanson: My hon. Friend raises important points. I will ensure that his strength of feeling about deprivation and allocation of resources is conveyed to the Health Secretary, Jane Hutt. I can tell him that the resource increases are significant. This year in Wales, the national health service will receive £2.8 billion, a 7 per cent. increase of £182 million over resources last year. That reflects real commitment by the Government, matched by partnership with the Assembly.
    Mr. Lembit öpik: Will the Minister discuss with the First Minister or the Health Secretary in the Assembly the prospect of holding a review of bed spaces in Wales, in line with the review being held in England?
    Mr. Hanson: I shall certainly draw that issue to the attention of the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services, but I stress that it is a matter for the National Assembly, which has to make the decisions. That is the position.
    Mr. Denzil Davies: Will the Secretary of State examine the crazy system of financing health authorities in Wales, whereby the authorities are deemed to have large deficits, which have arisen through providing health services? They are told to wipe out their deficits, but they can do that only by wiping out health services. Will the Secretary of State reconsider that system and institute a root and branch investigation into it?
    Mr. Hanson: My right hon. Friend makes important points. The Government's commitment to increasing health expenditure in Wales and elsewhere in the United Kingdom has been made to ensure that we provide better public services at the sharp end. I shall discuss my right hon. Friend's point with the Assembly Secretary for Health and Social Services.

    Railway Services
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: What representations he has received on the railway services available in Wales; and if he will make a statement. [108913]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have received no representations on railway services in Wales. However, I have regularly discussed transport in Wales with the First Secretary and the Assembly Cabinet.
    Transport generally is a matter for the National Assembly, although railways remain the responsibility of central Government, working closely with the Assembly on matters affecting Wales. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues to determine how best to meet the transport needs of Wales.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. One of the National Assembly's duties is to prepare

    937
    an integrated and sustainable transport policy. How is it possible to do that when the Assembly has no input into policy on the railways?
    Mr. Murphy: That is not quite right. Under the Transport Bill, which is going through the House, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions will accept that the Assembly has an interest in those matters. The Assembly will be consulted on the appointment of a member of the Strategic Rail Authority, which, in addition, will be compelled by law to consult the Assembly on its strategies. Nothing prevents the Assembly from discussing, or spending money on, the infrastructure of transport in Wales.
    We can best deal with the problems of the railways in Wales through partnership between central Government and the National Assembly.
    Mrs. Betty Williams: Will my right hon. Friend press the case for travellers between Holyhead and London? We are confronted daily with poor stock, bad punctuality and the attendant problems of such a service. The service has been neglected for far too long and I encourage my right hon. Friend to press our case strongly to the First Secretary of the National Assembly.
    Mr. Murphy: I understand my hon. Friend's points. I have travelled on that line on several occasions, and I fully accept her case. The Assembly is committed to investing £500,000 next year in the north Wales coast rail service to improve line speeds.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Gareth Thomas: What recent discussions he has held with the First Secretary on the level of unemployment in Wales. [108914]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): My right hon. Friend meets the First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues, including the level of unemployment in Wales. I am pleased to note that, between the general election and December 1999, the seasonally adjusted count of claimants of unemployment-related benefit has fallen from 81,800 under the Conservative Government to 59,200 under the Labour Government. That is a fall of more than 27 per cent.
    Mr. Thomas: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that response. Do not those figures reflect the Government's success in implementing the new deal and the working families tax credit, and encouraging sustainable growth and low inflation? Does my hon. Friend accept that the minimum wage has had a major impact on Wales? Far from creating more unemployment, it has had a genuine impact on, and is of real benefit to, many ordinary people in Wales.
    Mr. Hanson: Unemployment is at a 20-year low. In my hon. Friend's constituency of Clwyd, West, unemployment has fallen by 17 per cent. since the general election. The Government are making great strides to help create jobs and a climate for employment in Wales. The minimum wage is a valuable component, which ensures that people in Wales have decent pay. I am pleased to tell
    938
    my hon. Friend that the One2One telephone company has announced the creation of 1,000 jobs in Merthyr in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands). That is good news for Wales, and for the Labour Government's handling of the economy in Wales.
    Mr. Simon Thomas: Does the Minister agree that objective 1 resources are one of the best ways to create well-paid jobs in a constituency such as mine? Will he therefore join the First Minister in Wales and bust a gut to make sure that objective 1 money is additional to the Welsh block grant?
    Mr. Hanson: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his first Welsh Question Time. He is aware of the situation, as we discussed it extensively during his by-election. There is a process, and the Government are following it. He will have to wait and see, but objective 1 was secured by the Government and it will deliver real employment prospects for the people of Wales. Discussions and consideration have been undertaken.
    Mr. John Bercow: Given that unemployment has risen in Wales by 4,000 relative to the same quarter last year on the International Labour Organisation count, and that Business Strategies predicts an increase in unemployment of 7,000 consequent on the Government's stupid and malicious energy tax, when will the Minister abandon his smug complacency and own up to the massive damage that is being inflicted on the Welsh economy by their tax and regulatory policies?
    Mr. Hanson: On 1 May 1997, 81,800 people were unemployed. In December 1999, the figure was 59,200, which is a fall of 27 per cent. Labour government is working, the people of Wales are working and investment is being brought in. The Conservative party, which would scrap the new deal and is just about content to have the minimum wage, would damage the economy of Wales dramatically.

    Livestock Industry
    Mr. Owen Paterson: What discussions he has had with the First Secretary on the prospects for the Welsh livestock industry. [108915]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I have regular weekly meetings with the First Secretary and we discuss a wide range of issues, including the Welsh livestock industry. I am acutely aware of the problems facing the farming community and the agriculture industry in general.
    Mr. Paterson: The prospects for livestock farmers are so bleak in Wales that some will have an annual income this year of only £2,000, according to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. How can the Secretary of State look them in the eye and justify squandering £26 million of British taxpayers' money on a fancy new building for the First Secretary?
    Mr. Murphy: The hon. Gentleman, who represents an English constituency, will be aware that all Welsh Members, save a very small number, represent

    939
    constituencies with farming interests and all of us, including those who represent the south Wales valleys, know the problems that farmers face and the crisis that they are in. The number of actions that the Government have taken in the past year shows how seriously we take the farming crisis. For example, we gave more than £15 million in hill livestock compensatory allowance, introduced a cattle passport and deferred the charges and reduced the regulatory burden on farmers. The Assembly has taken a host of actions. He should be aware that the future of farming lies in the relationship between the Government and the farming industry and we must consider it on a long-term basis.

    Pig Farming
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent discussions he has had about pig farming in Wales with the First Secretary. [108916]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues.
    Miss McIntosh: Has the Secretary of State discussed the Prime Minister's commitment to find money for English pig farmers and will that money be extended to Welsh pig farmers? Does he share my concern that the new First Secretary may not be in post very long if such funds are not found?
    Mr. Murphy: I sincerely hope that the First Secretary will be in post for a very long time. The last thing that we want is another change. There are relatively few pig farmers in Wales and only 1.6 per cent. of Welsh farms are pig and poultry farms, but the work that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is undertaking on behalf of the pig industry applies just as much to Wales.

    Agriculture
    Mr. Michael Fabricant: When he will next meet the First Secretary to discuss the state of agriculture in Wales. [108917]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Paul Murphy): I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a wide range of issues, including Welsh agriculture.
    Mr. Fabricant: It is all very well for the Secretary of State to tell my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) and for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) that he knows all about the problems that Welsh farmers face. The dairy and livestock industry in Wales—[Interruption.] Labour Members obviously do not care a damn about them. Those industries have experienced a drop in income of more than 40 per cent., pig farming is almost on the point of collapse and in Ceredigion, where more than 21 per cent. of the population work in farming, people have shown what they think of the Labour Government. When will the Secretary of State stop saying that he knows about the problems and do something?
    Mr. Murphy: I live in, and represent, a Welsh constituency, and all of us who represent Welsh
    940
    constituencies have a great interest in the fanning industry and in its success. I have just told the House of the various measures that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture has taken. Those measures apply in Wales and, in addition, the National Assembly is doing a great deal to help the farming industry.

  The Prime Minister was asked—
  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Ql. [108936] Fiona Mactaggart: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Fiona Mactaggart: Is the Prime Minister aware that probably the greatest cause of crime in Britain today is drugs? In the small town of Slough alone, 43 problem drug users arrested in the past two months will be responsible for 5,000 crimes in the four to six weeks during which they wait for treatment. I spoke to Slough's police commander today, and he said that we need to do two things: provide better education to prevent young people from turning to drugs, and faster treatment for those problem users. May I tell the police commander that the Government are as serious as he is about drugs, and will deliver both those things?
    The Prime Minister: There is no more serious problem than the link between crime and drugs. The Government have already introduced minimum sentences of seven years for drug dealers, mandatory drug testing, and new drug treatment orders. An extra £220 million is going into a strategy to fight drugs. The number of seizures of both hard and soft drugs is up. We are now looking into the establishment of drug courts, which are already being piloted in Wakefield. We welcome the new campaign being launched by the Metropolitan police, which has dramatically increased the lead on drug dealers, and has resulted in 700 extra people being arrested just in the past two weeks. We are determined to fight the drug menace at every level through tougher measures in the law, better provision in the courts, better education in our schools and better treatment for drug offenders.
    Mr. William Hague: The whole country and all parts of the House will have been shocked and saddened by the catalogue of abuse in many care homes uncovered by the Waterhouse report, which was published yesterday. We now know that hundreds of the most vulnerable children in our society were cruelly betrayed. The inquiry has come up with many sensible recommendations, as we always hoped it would. Can the Prime Minister give the House and the country a clear timetable for responding to this report, and for action,

    941
    particularly in regard to the creation of a children's commissioner for children in care for all parts of the United Kingdom?
    The Prime Minister: It is, indeed, an appalling situation and an appalling catalogue of terror and tragedy inflicted on some of the most vulnerable children in our society. All parts of the House will be anxious to take action as soon as possible to act on the recommendations of the report. The Care Standards Bill and the Children (Leaving Care) Bill give us an opportunity to do so. We shall respond as soon as we possibly can.
    The Care Standards Bill provides for a children's rights director in England and a similar post in Wales. We are obviously considering all the recommendations, and the issue is being taken forward by a ministerial task force. We shall implement the recommendations as soon as we possibly can, and I believe that we shall do so with the support of the whole House.
    Mr. Hague: I am grateful for that reply. A children's rights director is not necessarily the same as a children's commissioner, but we all look forward to that proposal.
    On an even more urgent aspect, the Prime Minister will be aware that 28 people were named in the report as being involved in cases of abuse but whose whereabouts are unknown. Will he assure the House that all resources will be made available to find those people, to have their cases properly investigated, where appropriate to bring them to justice and to ensure that they never work with children in care again?
    The Prime Minister: Of course we will do that. It is necessary for us to do that. Moreover, under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 there are now new provisions in respect of sex offenders, which should give us some assistance.
    The post of children's rights director will be a senior post within the National Care Standards Commission. The commission as a whole will be able to drive forward the process of raising the standard of care in homes, and there will be a specific children's rights director. We will implement all the other recommendations in the report as soon as we can.
    Helen Jones: I agree with what the Prime Minister has said about children in care, but will he now turn his attention to a specific group of national health service staff? Does he agree that the valuable contribution made to the NHS by midwives has not been properly recognised, and that the implementation of clinical grading by the last Government led to serious problems of recruitment and retention? Bearing that in mind, will he tell us what the Government will do to develop the role of midwives, and to make best use of their expertise? Will he ensure that we have policies not only to attract new recruits, but to keep experienced midwives in the profession?
    The Prime Minister: I am pleased to pay tribute to the work of registered midwives. The number of midwives fell by some 1,000 under the last Government, but there are now more than 33,000 practising midwives, the most for three years. Last year alone, the number of applications for midwifery training rose by 50 per cent.,
    942
    and the number of widwives intending to practise has risen by 1,000. Action is being taken. Moreover, figures will soon show that there are more nurses and doctors in the system, and, having talked to the Government's cancer adviser two days ago, I can tell the House that there are now 50 per cent. more cancer specialists in training.
    It will take time to deal with some of the problems, but they are being dealt with.
    Mr. Charles Kennedy: Has the Prime Minister seen the reports in today's press that the entrepreneur James Dyson, who is to commit a significant sum involving a substantial number of jobs, is likely to invest that sum in China, Hong Kong and Malaysia because of the strength of the pound and the uncertainty over the Government's commitment to the euro? Does the Prime Minister not recognise that, if we are losing investment opportunities of that kind, the Government need to make the case for the euro and promote the cause of Europe more strenuously?
    The Prime Minister: I will not comment on the particular case, which involves a decision that a particular person must make. I think that the important thing is to join the euro only in circumstances in which it is economically beneficial to the country, and that is precisely why we have set out the economic tests and conditions. The test should surely be British jobs, British investment and British industry: that is a sensible test. We should not rule out joining the euro for political reasons, which is the position of the Conservative party, but neither should we be in a position whereby we join regardless of the economic conditions. That, surely, is to the best benefit of the whole of British industry.
    Mr. Kennedy: Surely the Prime Minister must engage more seriously, given the serious campaign that has been launched by the leader of the Tory party. If ever there was a case of dodgy goods falling on to the back of a truck, that is it.
    Does the Prime Minister not recognise that sentiment is slipping away from the sensible pro-European case, and that those of us in all parties who have shared a platform—including the former Tory Chancellor, the former Tory Deputy Prime Minister, himself, myself and others—must redouble our efforts to make the case, and to win in our vital national interest?
    The Prime Minister: The case that I want to make is the case of the Government, and the case of the Government is that we should apply the test of the economic conditions. That is the sensible test, and I believe that it is the position of the vast majority of British people. They want the test to be one of Britain's national interest. The test is British jobs, British industry and British investment, and the people believe it is right that they should have the ultimate say in a referendum. That is why I disagree so profoundly with the position of the Conservative party. As for the Liberal Democrats, I am never sure whether or not they disagree with our position, and are saying that they would join on a basis other than the economic conditions.
    I shall be emphatic. It will be done on the basis of the British national interest—that is the right test—not the ideology of anti-Europeans, or those who want to join

    943
    the euro regardless of the economic conditions. It will be done according to them because that is the right thing for Britain.
    Ms Hazel Blears: I am delighted that the Government's new crime fighting fund will mean that Greater Manchester police are able to recruit an extra 378 officers to tackle crime on the streets, but crime and disorder have left many inner-city communities deeply damaged. Will the Prime Minister confirm that the Government will help local authorities such as Salford, especially their social services departments, which have to pick up the pieces, to care for children and their families and help to rebuild those communities?
    The Prime Minister: We shall support local government and other players too in the inner cities who are trying to put together imaginative programmes to regenerate the inner city. That is why we are putting more money into education, more money into health and more money into fighting crime in areas such as Salford.
    It is also why we are offering the new deal to some of the people in areas that are represented by my hon. Friend and many other hon. Members where there are high levels of unemployment. Where there is a doubt about whether work pays, we are offering a 10p starting rate, plus the working families tax credit. We are also offering, of course, better child benefit, so that we support families. That is the right way: acting both on the regeneration problems in inner cities and on the individual problems of people, to bring hope to communities and constituencies such as those of my hon. Friend.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: May I ask the Prime Minister a non-partisan question following his statement on drugs? He had the meeting this morning with Keith Hellawell. I have no doubt that he has now had a chance to see the letter that I sent him two days ago, at the request of my constituents who are providing voluntary and statutory services for drug misusers.
    Given the problem of people in jail, where, 18,000 times last year, prisoners were detected using drugs, and there were only three prosecutions, would it be possible for the Prime Minister to co-ordinate the efforts of the Department of Health, the Home Office and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions to ensure that those concerned with providing day centres outside prison do not find themselves martyred and sent to prison in the way that the Wintercomfort two were? In a positive way, without interfering in the judicial process, which is not appropriate across the Floor of the House of Commons, will he call together those involved in the statutory services and the voluntary ones, so that those who do follow the guidelines do not find themselves at risk of being prosecuted?
    The Prime Minister: It is entirely sensible, obviously, to ensure that the strategy is a common one that works across all the different agencies. I have not yet seen the letter that the hon. Gentleman sent to me. I shall reply to it in due course, but may I say that, as a result of the new measures that we have introduced on drug testing in prison, the number of those who have had positive mandatory drugs tests in prison has fallen from
    944
    24.4 per cent. three years ago to 18.3 per cent. now. That is some help that is being given: better treatment, better testing in prisons.
    The same has to be done effectively in the community as well. That is why we are introducing the mandatory drug testing treatment orders. We will be able to reach a situation, when the new Bill goes through, which I hope the hon. Gentleman and other members of his party will support, that will allow us—in circumstances where the police charge someone who is a drug addict and who, if they are allowed back out on bail, will simply commit more criminal offences—to give proper treatment.
    That requires the treatment to be available, but it also requires the police to have the powers. Those two things going together is the best way that we are going to tackle this particular problem. I agree with the hon. Gentleman. It is one that causes concern in every single constituency in the country, but I was very heartened by the meeting that I had this morning. I thought that the strategy that was outlined by Keith Hellawell was exactly right. It will take time, but it will work.
    Ms Debra Shipley: Will my right hon. Friend, in view of yesterday's horrifying report, draw to the attention of employers of child care workers that not only are they required by law to vet their employees now, but, if they have even suspicions of abuse, they are required under the Protection of Children Act 1999 to report them and to investigate them? No longer are they allowed to let someone retire early, to leave, or simply to dismiss them on some other grounds. That is the law now.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that people realise that they have such a duty and that, if they simply pass the problem on to someone else, some other organisation or some other body, it is children in the end who will suffer. One thing we have learned about these cases over a long period is that, of course, we have to investigate any inquiries very carefully, but we must ensure that, when those inquiries are made and they do find abuse, we act upon it.
    Mr. Richard Allan: The Prime Minister may be aware of recent reports that the United States company Myriad Genetics is seeking to patent the genes indicating susceptibility to breast cancer, which could result in British women being tied to using expensive tests from a single US company. Given reports, last September, that the Prime Minister was holding negotiations with the US president on how to keep the human genetic sequence in the public domain, will he tell us not only how those negotiations are going, but particularly whether he agrees with Bill Clinton's comment, last week, that such genetic patents should be kept narrow—so that only specific uses of the genetic code are patented, rather than the code itself, which belongs to all of mankind?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman is somewhat overstating the matter of negotiations on genetic issues. We have not had any negotiations with the American Government on those issues, which of course are important. The most important thing that we have done is to introduce the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, which can evaluate drugs. We now have a proper, independent way of evaluating and ensuring that we make

    945
    an assessment on the proper evidence. We have no interest in the particular issue to which the hon. Gentleman refers, other than to ensure that people get the best treatment possible. We have no more interest in one specific drug than another.
    Ms Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sub-post offices—of which there are nearly 20 in my constituency, in villages such as Blairhall and Saline—provide a vital community service, as they are often the early warning system when an elderly or disabled person does not call in as usual for their pension or newspaper? Given the Government's commitment to building strong communities, does the Prime Minister agree that sub-post offices can not only be at their heart, but need the support and encouragement of us all?
    The Prime Minister: Of course, they will get that encouragement and support. They are an important local network and focal point for communities. It is important, obviously, that we carry on introducing the new automation procedures—which will not force people to accept benefits in cash, but allow benefit to be paid into a bank account.
    There has scarcely been a more hypocritical campaign than that of Conservative Members on this issue. Might I remind the House that it was the previous, Conservative Government who signed the contract for the automation? Had we cancelled the contract on coming to power, it would have cost hundreds of millions of pounds. Conservative Members—I got the figures out this morning—closed 3,000 post offices when they were in office. We shall do our best to support rural post offices, but we will not pay any attention to the hypocritical cant of the Tories.
    Mr. Eric Forth: With which of the recent pronouncements on the future of Europe uttered by the Prime Minister's friend and nominee, Mr. Prodi, does the Prime Minister disagree?
    The Prime Minister: We have set out our position in our own White Paper, which I commend to the right hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Hilary Benn: Is the Prime Minister aware that there are currently six countries that execute juvenile offenders, including the United States of America, where, earlier this month, in Oklahoma, Sean Sellers was put to death for crimes committed when he was 16 years of age? Given that the Government oppose the use of the death penalty in all circumstances, will my right hon. Friend urge those six countries—and other countries that retain capital punishment—to introduce a moratorium on its use, because its barbarity and potential for injustice has no place in any country that claims to call itself civilised?
    The Prime Minister: We oppose the death penalty in all circumstances, and we have ratified the death penalty
    946
    protocols—not only to the European convention on human rights, but to the international covenant on civil and political rights. That position will not change.
    Mr. William Hague: The last time that I asked the Prime Minister about failing to keep his promises, he had to admit that police numbers had fallen by 1,000, but he assured the House that
    "police numbers will rise again."—[Official Report, 15 December 1999; Vol. 341, c. 265.]
    Will he read out to the House the latest figures for police numbers, published a few days ago?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear that police numbers have come down. Police numbers will rise again as a result of the additional money over and above the plans that we inherited from the Conservatives, which will allow us to recruit 5,000 extra police. Those are 5,000 police who, had we maintained the plans that the right hon. Gentleman agreed when he was in the Cabinet, would not be recruited.
    Mr. Hague: What is wrong with reading out the numbers? They are here in the Home Secretary's parliamentary answer. Some Ministers answer questions even if the Prime Minister will not. The Prime Minister said that the figures would rise again. The latest figures show that the number of police has now fallen by 1,700 since he became Prime Minister. Crime is rising again and police numbers are falling.
    At the same time, I asked the right hon. Gentleman about meeting his promises on health. He said that in-patient waiting lists were falling. Will he read out to the House the latest figures on in-patient waiting lists?
    The Prime Minister: In relation to crime—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer !"I Do the Conservatives want the answers or not? Police numbers fell under the previous Government, during the time that the right hon. Gentleman was in office. Crime doubled. It increased faster than in any other western country. The chance of being a victim of crime trebled. The number of convictions and the proportion of convictions fell. The numbers of rapes, robberies and young offenders all rose. That was his record on crime.
    In relation to waiting lists, they are 50,000 below the level that we inherited from the Conservatives. If the right hon. Gentleman is complaining about the numbers now, presumably he would like to condemn even more the time that he was in office.
    Mr. Hague: All that is waffle. The accurate answer is that since the Prime Minister said that in-patient waiting lists were falling, the number has gone up by 36,000. There is no point in him shaking his head. That is the figure from the Department of Health. Out-patient waiting lists are a quarter of a million higher than when he took office. The assurances that he gave from the Dispatch Box on 15 December—only nine weeks ago on health and police numbers have already turned out to be complete and total rubbish.

    947
    The Prime Minister also said in the House last year that he would deal better, more effectively and more quickly with asylum claims. Will he give us the latest figures for the number of asylum seekers?
    The Prime Minister: The figures are 50,000 below the level that we inherited. There are more nurses in the health service than when the right hon. Gentleman was in office. There are more doctors in the health service. Waiting times are coming down and we have put massive new investment into the health service.
    In respect of asylum, it is true that, like every other major European country, we have been hit with more asylum claims. That is why, from this April, we are introducing a wholly new procedure on asylum. That procedure was opposed by the Conservatives. The right hon. Gentleman attacks us on asylum. Yes, there is a problem, but we are dealing with it in the face of his opposition.
    Mr. Hague: On this as well, the Prime Minister will not give us the figures. With his head for figures, no wonder it is taking him five days to count all those mayoral votes on his own. When he said last May that he would deal better, more effectively and more quickly with asylum claims, the backlog was 76,000 asylum seekers. Now it is 103,000. We have always known that he was not keeping the promises that he made at the last election. Now we know that he has not even kept the promises that he made in the House throughout last year. Waiting lists are higher when he said that they were going to fall, police numbers are lower when he said that they were going to rise and the asylum backlog is growing when he said that it was going to fall. Are not those facts the conclusive evidence that he is all mouth and no delivery?
    The Prime Minister: Again, the right hon. Gentleman is wrong. Now, as a result of the additional resources that we have put in, the immigration department is close to achieving 4,000 asylum decisions a month. That figure will rise to 8,000 a month by the late spring. The new rules will then come in and we shall be able to deal with asylum seekers more effectively.
    In respect of health and crime, it is absolutely true that we need to do even more about waiting lists and police numbers. However, all these measures require the expenditure of money. The one group of people who cannot claim that any more money should be spent is the Conservative party, which is saying that it will put the tax guarantee before any increase in public spending. In case the right hon. Gentleman should doubt that—[Interruption.]
    Madam Speaker: Order. The House must come to order.
    The Prime Minister: Just a few weeks ago, the right hon. Gentleman said that the tax guarantee meant that the Conservatives would not increase public spending. So he cannot complain about the need for more police; they cost
    948
    money. He cannot complain about the need for more nurses; they cost money. He cannot complain about the waiting lists; reducing them costs money. He cannot complain about asylum seekers; it costs money to deal with them. Yes, it is true that every single promise that we made—on getting waiting lists down, getting class sizes down and increasing police numbers—will be met by the next general election, as we said they would be. The public know that whereas we will invest more in public services, the right hon. Gentleman, through his tax guarantee, will cut public spending. The tax guarantee is a boom and bust guarantee and an NHS cuts guarantee. That is the difference between the two parties. However much the right hon. Gentleman wants public spending, Labour will put in the investment and the Conservatives would take it out.
    Mr. Geraint Davies: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the growth of the internet has brought with it a growth in at-home shopping and working and that those trends will lead to a reduction in the demand for office space and shopping space? As a result, there may be a new renaissance in building new homes in new townscapes that will be environmentally sustainable and economically effective, using the technologies of the new century.
    The Prime Minister: It is important that we drive through the internet revolution and make sure that people have access to computer technology. When we came to office in 1997, around one in 10 schools were linked to the internet. By 2002, more than 23,000 schools will be connected, with computer training available to 400,000 teachers. We already have 15,000 schools online. In addition, we shall be giving people special help to take computer courses. In last year's Budget, we set a target for a national network of 1,000 computer learning centres—one for every community in Britain. That is one reason why the number of people in employment is 800,000 higher than it was when we took office.
    Dr. Michael Clark: Is the Prime Minister aware that the rumour that there will be a big increase in stamp duty on house purchase is being received with dismay in my constituency and elsewhere? Does he accept that this would push up the cost of purchasing a house in the south-east, where house prices are already expensive, and that it would reduce national mobility, particularly for those in the north who wished to move to the south? What would the purpose be of such a move, apart from being just another increase in taxation?
    The Prime Minister: I shall treat that as an early Budget submission. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman's constituents were glad of an economy in which economic stability has been delivered, and we have 800,000 extra people in work, which stands in sharp contrast to the situation in the early 1990s—the last time the policies now advocated by his leader were pursued; they resulted in interest rates of 10 per cent. for four years or more, interest rates at 15 per cent. for one year or more, and literally millions of jobs lost.

Points of Order
3.30 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. In view of the resignation now of Mrs. Jutta Burghardt, the United Nations food programme director in Baghdad, and previously of Hans von Sponeck and Denis Halliday, two very senior international civil servants, on matters of principle over what is happening to the children of Iraq, have you had any request for an answer to Question 18 to the Prime Minister, or any request from the Foreign Office to make a statement?
Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman is taking a little advantage. I have seen his question on the Order Paper and, like many others, it was not reached. To answer him factually, I have not been told that any Minister is seeking to make a statement today.
Sir Raymond Powell: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. My point of order is directed to you and is not a bogus point of order.
Madam Speaker: That makes a change.
Sir Raymond Powell: Last week, you commented in reply to a point of order that you are in daily and weekly conversation with the Presiding Officers of the Welsh Assembly and the Scottish Parliament. Could you use your influence with, and attachment to, the Presiding Officer of the Welsh Assembly to share some of your knowledge and experience gained over the years, especially of being an impartial Speaker—as every right hon. and hon. Member applauds and appreciates? Could you take him to your bosom and convince him that it is a necessity when he is presiding to be impartial and not to show his Welsh nationalist connections? Those connections showed last week in the Assembly debate, and most people in Wales were absolutely disgusted at the attitude that the Presiding Officer took.
Madam Speaker: And I thought that was going to be a genuine point of order. Of course I am in touch from time to time with the Presiding Officers of the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly, but I always wait to be invited before giving advice. I think that that is a wise way to proceed.
Sir David Madel: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I wish to seek your guidance on answers given by the Foreign Secretary yesterday on the intergovernmental conference. In relation to Cyprus's application to join the European Union, he said:
"The principle of freedom of movement will certainly apply to all applicant countries when they succeed in becoming members."
However, in a later answer, he said:
"Freedom of movement between the Republic of Cyprus and the occupied northern sector would apply only if Turkey simultaneously joined the European Union."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 778–81.]
That is a contradiction, and I wondered whether at 7 o'clock we could take a little break and have a statement from the Foreign Secretary
Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is a longstanding Member and he knows full well that that is a matter for argument and is by no means a point of order.

Welfare of Racing Greyhounds
3.34 pm
Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for the welfare of racing greyhounds at all tracks in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for this opportunity to bring to the attention of the House a matter in which I have taken a special interest in the past couple of years.
In 1998, two of my constituents—Mrs. Pudney and Miss Pudney, who regularly write on animal welfare matters—brought to my attention some of the problems associated with the greyhound industry, which is otherwise known as a sport. First, they told me that a great many very young greyhound puppies are destroyed each year when they fail to make the grade, and that many others are discarded after they have peaked at an early age. Secondly, they highlighted the plight suffered by other greyhounds when their racing days in the UK are over. I should like to thank my constituents for raising those matters with me, and I shall return to them in a moment.
In addition, I want to raise the matter of the health and welfare of dogs at UK tracks. This is a problem at both licensed and unlicensed tracks, but it is the unlicensed tracks that give the greater cause for concern.
I must declare an interest in this matter. In the past seven years, my family and I have taken in two dogs from Battersea dogs home. Scruffy has now gone to the great kennel in the sky, but Kajan was Westminster dog of the year this year. Both knew a thing or two about greyhounds: although neither belong to that breed, there were many greyhounds with them at Battersea—indeed, far too many.
Individuals and groups concerned with greyhound welfare have told me about the number of greyhound puppies that are bred each year. The figures suggest that 75 to 85 per cent. of greyhounds racing in the UK are bred in Ireland, which also supplies the US, Spain, the United Arab Emirates and other countries. In 1998, my noble Friend Lord Williams of Mostyn, the Minister who was responsible for this area of animal welfare, informed me in correspondence that the
"destruction of healthy greyhound puppies is, of course, to be regretted."
That may be Government understatement, but unfortunately that was as much as my noble Friend was able to say. Some estimates suggest that several thousand dogs are routinely destroyed each year. That gives some idea of how early in the life of a greyhound the problems begin to arise.
So what is life at the tracks like for the dogs? I am sure that many people innocently assume that, because greyhounds run very fast, it is no hardship for them to do so, and that, given that they do not have to jump high fences and that they have no one on their backs, they probably do not have a bad life, all told. I am afraid that closer inspection shows that that is not the whole story.
In the greyhound industry, 33 tracks are registered by the National Greyhound Racing Club, greyhound racing's

951
judicial body, which registers dogs on their tracks and controls the racing rule book. However, 35 tracks are outside NGRC control, and there is no identifiable representative body for the independent tracks—or flapping tracks, as they are known.
Under NGRC rules, all registered tracks must have a veterinary surgeon in attendance when greyhounds are racing, but that rule does not apply at independent tracks. The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals—which I believe has the respect of all hon. Members—has stated that
"it is important that animals hurt or injured during racing receive swift and adequate veterinary attention to minimise their suffering".
The RSPCA also set out a number of items on a check list. First, common standards of track design should be improved to ensure that dangerous bends do not cause unnecessary injury to dogs. I believe that those improvements should also cover track surfaces. Secondly, the organisation states that track kennels must be inspected and licensed by local authorities. No legislation exists to allow local authorities to control the welfare of racing greyhounds, and their only responsibility is in respect of gaming and betting. The RSPCA also states that the frequency of races should be restricted.
Thirdly, the RSPCA has stipulated that a vet must be in attendance at all races, and that that should be funded centrally by the racing organisations, rather than by the track owner, as is currently the case at NGRC races. Fourthly, and most importantly, the RSPCA states that tracks without veterinary provision should not be allowed to operate.
I believe that that check list from the RSPCA is the very least that the sport or industry should be made to adhere to, and I assume that the NGRC would agree. There is a good case for introducing legislation to regulate the whole industry, and the time has come for a review. I feel that the House can do something more positive to protect greyhounds during their racing lives.
The dogs have a number of champions besides my constituents. They include Annette Crosbie of Greyhounds UK, the National Canine Defence League and its members, and a retired vet by the name of Paddy Sweeney, who has done much to highlight the situation in respect of racing conditions. I should like to record my thanks to Mr. Sweeney in particular for his work in this area.
Mr. Sweeney pointed out that NGRC rules give vets no complete power or authority at the licensed tracks. Vets can advise promoters or managers, but the rules do not state that that advice must be accepted. So where profitability is threatened, vets can be given short shrift if they endeavour to act in the best interests of the racing dog.
Paddy outlined an example in which atrocious conditions one winter's night at a track led trainers to plead with the vet to intercede for them. The vet telephoned the manager of the track to ask that someone go along to inspect it. There was no immediate response, but I am informed that the next day the vet received a letter terminating his contract. As matters stand, it sometimes appears that even when vets are present, it is more to reassure the public than because they are on active duty. I sincerely hope that that is not the case.
952
I want to address what happens to the dogs when their racing days in this country are over. We all know the saying, "A dog is for life, not just for Christmas." For our purposes, we need to bear it in mind that a greyhound is for life, not just for the duration of its racing and money-making years. Unsurprisingly, the various groups with a concern or interest in the matter disagree as to the nature of the problem and its relative severity. However, no one could contend that no problem exists.
The Retired Greyhound Trust, established to ensure the welfare of post-racing dogs, was deemed by the Select Committee on Home Affairs to be grossly underfunded. It can find homes for only about 1,500 greyhounds out of the total of 10,000-odd which retire each year. Some are put down; others are exported from the United Kingdom. Those dogs have usually ended their racing life in this country. Whatever the fate of exported greyhounds, I take this opportunity to advocate support, in the Bill, for greatly increased resources for retired greyhounds.
I am pleased to report that in 1991 a Home Affairs Committee report recommended:
"track owners and both on and off-course bookmakers should be required to donate a part of their profits to the Retired Greyhound Trust. The NGRC/BGRB should take the lead in this."
New legislation could address that matter. However, I am aware that the BGRB is actively seeking agreement to increase the funding of the trust to £1 million a year. The sooner that that can be done, the better.
Furthermore, £2 billion a year is bet on greyhound racing. A levy on betting, similar to that which applies to horse racing, would provide a fund for improving tracks, veterinary support and greyhound welfare. The Government have yet to give their endorsement, regarding this as a commercial activity. However, it might be time to rethink that perspective.
I conclude by reminding hon. Members that the dog has been called man's best friend. That may not be politically correct, and my cat-loving assistant, Debbie, would disagree. However, greyhounds make great pets, especially for pensioners. Greyhounds are renowned for their mild and friendly nature and, as they are very lean, they do not take a lot of feeding. That makes them economic as well as affectionate.
The Bill is very timely. We will be able not only to say that a dog is for life, not just for Christmas, but that a greyhound is for life, not just for its money-making sporting ability.
Dogs give service as workers, pets and friends, but greyhounds serve also as entertainers for us. It is time we recognised their role by taking this matter forward in the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick, Mr. Nigel Griffiths, Mr. Ian Cawsey, Mr. Tony Banks, Angela Smith, Mr. Keith Darvill and Dr. Nick Palmer.

Welfare of Racing Greyhounds
  WELFARE OF RACING GREYHOUNDS
  Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for the welfare of racing greyhounds at all tracks in the United Kingdom; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 7 April, and to be printed [Bill 70].
  Orders of the Day

    Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill
    [2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
    (Clauses 1 to 18 and 95 to 120, Schedules 1, 2 and 11 to 14, New Clauses and New Schedules relating to Parts I and VII)
    Considered in Committee [Progress, 14 February].
    [MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

  Clause 95

    REFERENDUMS TO WHICH THIS PART APPLIES.
    3.44 pm
    Mr. Robert Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 60, line 37, leave out from "Ireland" to end of line 39.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 44, in page 60, line 39, at end insert—
    'or
    (d) any two or more local government administrative units in England and Wales.'.
    Mr. Walter: I do not intend to dwell long on the amendments, which are relatively simple. Conservative Members are conscious of the fact that the measure provides for referendums to be held not only nationally, but in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and in any of the regions, as defined by the regional development agencies.
    It may come as no surprise to the Committee that Conservative Members see nothing magical in the areas of the RDAs. Elsewhere and on other occasions, we have pointed out that we are not entirely happy with the concept of RDAs—not least because we are not entirely happy that government should be organised on such a basis, although regional boundaries must be drawn somewhere.
    That does not mean, however, that there is always a community of interest in a particular region. For example, my constituency is in Dorset, which is linked to the south-west region, but my constituents have little in common with the electors of Tewkesbury or Truro—save the fact that we all catch the train from either Waterloo or Paddington to reach the area.
    Through the amendments, we want to provide the Electoral Commission with the power to regulate referendums held in smaller areas in multiples of local government areas—not in individual local government areas, because those are covered elsewhere. It would thus be possible to hold a regional referendum in, for example, Devon and Cornwall on an issue that was pertinent to both counties, but not to only one of them, and certainly not to the whole south-west region.
    One could envisage a referendum being held on an issue that affected both sides of the Severn estuary; that might include the local government units in the former county of Gwent, in Gloucestershire and in Somerset.
    954
    To give the Electoral Commission the flexibility to consider local referendums in areas that do not necessarily coincide with those covered by the RDAs or the home nations would be a worthwhile addition to the Bill.
    Mr. Andrew Stunell: The amendments are rather mismatched. The first would delete one category of referendum. That is a mistake, because we need the widest possible range of options to ensure that the area in which opinions are sought, whatever its boundaries, comes within the purview of the Electoral Commission. As we want to bring all such matters under the control of the commission, it seems perverse to remove one category of referendum.
    The second amendment is sensible. As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) pointed out, it will sometimes be appropriate or expedient to hold referendums in more limited areas. He hinted at a Severn estuary referendum or at others that might cross current regional boundaries. I represent a constituency with the east midlands region on its southern boundary, but it is firmly placed in the north-west. It is less than 10 miles to the Yorkshire and Humberside region. The hon. Member for High Peak (Mr. Levitt) is in the Chamber, and we share a constituency boundary even though our constituencies are in different regions. One can imagine that a referendum on the Peak district national park or related issues would necessarily cross regional boundaries. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman is holding up several fingers, but I cannot interpret what they mean.
    Amendment No. 44 would allow for something that is not constrained by the nations and states of the United Kingdom, or by the economic regions. It would thus be a useful addition to the Bill. Unfortunately, any vote would be on amendment No. 36. I hope that the Government will reject that, but that they will give serious consideration to amendment No. 44, which would build in a level of flexibility that would allow the Electoral Commission in reasonably foreseeable circumstances to exercise control and be the effective monitoring body, without the need to resort again to primary legislation.
    Dr. Norman A. Godman: I shall be brief. I agree with much of what the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) said about the two amendments.
    Regional referendums can be important. The Committee may recall a referendum on the merits of the public ownership of water authorities that was held some years ago in the Strathclyde region. It attracted about 1 million respondents, 98 per cent. of whom said that they wanted water services to remain under local authority control. The potency of that response deterred the then Tory Government from privatising the water boards in Scotland.
    I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Minister a question. It might be a little precipitate, but it was prompted by something that the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said. Have there been any discussions with the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Executive—we all know about the problems there—and the Welsh Executive about the conduct and commissioning of referendums? For example, if referendums are held in Northern Ireland once the Executive is reinstituted—

    955
    I hope that that will take place soon—or in Scotland and Wales, am I right in thinking that it will be the respective Executives rather than the Westminster Government who will have the authority to call the referendums?
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): The distance between us is very small, even though I will not accept the amendments. I do not agree with amendment No. 36, but I shall give some consideration to amendment No. 44, albeit not on this Bill. As I shall explain, there is a way of dealing with the issue other than trying to amend the Bill.
    Clause 95(1) specifies the referendums to which the provisions of part VII apply. It is not ultimately an exhaustive list, in the sense that future legislation providing for referendums to be held throughout areas or combinations of administrative units not specified in the clause could provide for the controls set in this part to be applied fully or in part to those referendums. That is not the only way in which we can manage the division of areas for referendums. We could decide in later legislation to do it differently. All that we are providing here, for the sake of convenience, is a template that we may or may not choose to use.
    A case in point would be referendums on directly elected mayors under the Local Government Bill, which will make provision for the Secretary of State to make regulations as to the conduct of such referendums. It is intended that those regulations should apply, with necessary modifications, to a number of the provisions in part VII, having regard to the particular circumstances of those local referendums.
    Clause 95(1)(c), which amendment No. 36 would delete, allows the provisions of part VII to be applied to a referendum held throughout an English region. Such referendums are not by any means an immediate prospect, but the Government intend to introduce, possibly in the next Parliament, legislation to allow people, region by region, to decide in a referendum whether they want directly elected regional government. The Government's judgment is that the part VII provisions would apply fully to such referendums. We might as well put them in place, because this is convenient legislation in which to do so, and it will provide for simplicity later.
    Those referendums would be held on matters of significance, and each would involve a substantial electorate. Given that regional referendums are a genuine prospect, it makes sense to take this opportunity to make it clear that these controls would apply to those referendums.
    Amendment No. 44 would apply the part VII provisions to referendums held in two or more local government administrative units in England and Wales. I am not persuaded that we need to put that into the Bill. We have made no presumptions that the boundaries for any future regional government in England need necessarily follow those of the existing administrative regions; that is, the Government office boundaries.
    We have said that in time we shall introduce legislation to allow people to choose whether they want regional government. How we would deal with referendums cutting across regional boundaries should be a matter for that legislation. It is no use trying to prejudge the boundaries that we would use, when it may be some time
    956
    before we will want to call those referendums. The Bill is convenient and simple and gives us a legitimate basis for proceeding with those referendums.
    We are not closing the door on the ideas put forward by the hon. Members for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), and I hope that, with the reassurances that I have given, the hon. Member for North Dorset will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
    I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman) that there have been discussions with the Scots and Welsh about how to proceed with the legislation. As we get used to devolution, it is becoming natural for us to consult and discuss with our colleagues in the Scottish Parliament and Executive and the Welsh Assembly and Executive the changes that are taking place. I hope that he is satisfied with that reassurance.
    Mr. Walter: I thank the Minister for his response. I am slightly—I would not say entirely—reassured that he has taken on board our points, particularly on amendment No. 44. On the basis that he seems to accept their spirit and suggests that they should be incorporated in other, later legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    4 pm
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I beg to move amendment No. 45, in page 61, line 13, at end add—
    '(6) The exact number, nature and wording of

    (a) the question or questions, and

    (b) the possible answers to each question

    in a referendum or other poll to which this Part applies shall be determined after consultation with the Commission; and any views expressed by the Commission shall be published.'.
    The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 46, in clause 97, page 61, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 34 and insert—
    `The date of the poll in the case of any referendum to which this Part applies shall be fixed by the Commission, and'.
    No. 48, in clause 101, page 63, line 34, leave out 'after consulting the Commission' and insert—
    'on the recommendation of the Commission'.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: In responding to the previous group of amendments moved by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), the Minister used some interesting turns of phrase, of which I made a note. He talked of, "We might as well put in place", "It will be convenient" and "It makes sense." I hope that he will respond to amendment No. 45 in a similar spirit, because it would make sense and be convenient to implement the provisions suggested in it and the consequential amendments that we have tabled.
    There was much talk on Monday, when we debated previous clauses, of the role of the commission and of the Speaker's Committee that will oversee its work. However, there seems to be no place for the commission in the crucial, central part of the Bill on drafting questions on referendum forms. The amendments would ensure a

    957
    specified, proper and official place for the commission. It should be consulted on the drafting, so that it may be satisfied, beyond doubt, that the wording is not loaded.
    Members of Parliament are called on more than others to fill in questionnaires day after day. Frankly, I make a practice of refusing to do so.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: So do I.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I am glad that the Minister takes the same line. His apt sedentary intervention underlines the need for the amendments.
    It is easy to load a question, thereby almost directing the answer. The commission should be consulted and any views expressed by it published, so that people may take due note of what it has said.
    Mr. John Bercow: The Committee knows that my hon. Friend's eloquence is legendary. Do I interpret him correctly if I say that, without the amendments that he is eloquently advocating, the danger is that the commission would be nothing but the Prime Minister's hapless glove puppet?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: I am always reluctant to allow any colleague to put words into my mouth, particularly when they come from my hon. Friend's silver tongue. If we do not incorporate the amendment, the danger is that we shall have an emasculated commission, which, at the very point of delivery, cannot exert influence or even express an opinion.
    In a sense, therefore, my hon. Friend is right. We are concerned about the commission. We want it to have due and proper influence on the way in which questions are worded. We want its views to be known to all so that, if there is conflict or doubt, those who are called on to vote on any issue will know what the commission has said.
    I hope that there is common ground between parties that the commission should be a respected body, whose general impartiality and approach is never questioned. If the commission is to have such a reputation and to maintain it through the years, it must have influence at such a crucial point.
    The Minister has acknowledged, not only in his sedentary intervention, but in the context of the Bill, that there is some force to my argument, so I hope that he will accept the amendment. Even in the new clause, which we shall debate later and which I therefore cannot debate now, and which is so draconian, there is a specific reference to the commission and a role assigned to it. How much more important it is, then, to assign a role to the commission in clause 95.
    Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be brief. The independents have not been widely consulted on this measure. Indeed, regrettably, they have not been consulted at all. The Parliamentary Secretary said that it was his belief that independents were usually Conservatives in disguise. That is not always and invariably the case.
    I support the amendment, because I believe that the Bill contains some anti-democratic elements, of which this provision is one. The commission's independence is
    958
    paramount, as it is in the nature of political parties—all political parties—to take power or to hold on to power. It will be extraordinarily difficult to safeguard the independence of the commission and its right to speak for and protect the interests of all the people in the country, who may not necessarily belong to a political party but who have profound political interests. Therefore, I support the amendment.
    Mr. Stunell: The Liberal Democrats support the thrust of the amendment.
    The three national referendums most likely to be held over the next few years are all on issues on which I would want the answer to be yes—Lords reform, the European Union and proportional representation. However, my strong desire for a positive result when those referendums are held does not blind me to the fact that those who set the questions have tremendous power to determine the outcome.
    Every politician, I suppose, wants to win by fair means or foul, but I want to win primarily by fair means.
    Hon. Members: Primarily?
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Having enunciated that novel—or perhaps traditional—Liberal Democrat policy, will the hon. Gentleman explain the ratio?
    Mr. Stunell: I am glad to have livened up the debate somewhat. The difficulty in discussing the Bill, as I said in a previous debate on the Floor of the House, is not that Members of Parliament are too poorly informed to discuss it—a fault that sometimes arises, if I may say so—but that we are too well informed to discuss it properly.
    Regardless of the passion with which we want a particular outcome in politics, we have a duty to ensure that the processes used to reach decisions are fair, proper and balanced, not just to produce the desired outcome, but to ensure a fair opportunity for alternative views to be expressed and heard.
    The point made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) is one that we may not want to state on the Floor of the Chamber, but which we would certainly admit elsewhere—that is, that politicians never want to give up power. They will take power and hold on to it. I do not exclude the Liberal Democrats or any other political party from that. Perhaps the hon. Member for Tatton would allow me to say that even independents, once elected to the House, are sometimes tempted to stay. They may resist that temptation, and the Bill is about resisting temptation.
    The intention of the amendments, if not their precise wording, is right. They reserve to the commission some of the fundamental decisions about how referendum questions will be phrased and put to the public. That is a proper reservation of power and duty to the Electoral Commission.
    I understand the Government's thinking. I understand that there is a certain amount of expedience in this Parliament and, in their mind, in the next Parliament and possibly for the next thousand years. They will set the questions. However, a day will come when they will not set the questions. They might then wish that the Electoral Commission had a bigger role than that for which the Bill provides.

    959
    As a Liberal Democrat, I seldom get to set the questions. Although I support a specific outcome, I am well versed in the need for safeguards against power. I urge the Government to look favourably on the amendment's intention, if not the precise wording.
    Dr. Godman: I have been a Member of Parliament for 16 years, but I never thought the day would come when I found myself in some agreement with a Conservative, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack); a Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell); and an Independent Member, the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell). I may get into trouble, but they have raised important points of principle about setting a fair question or series of questions in a referendum.
    I was sorry to hear the hon. Member for South Staffordshire say that he never fills in questionnaires. Much empirical social science research uses questionnaires as a methodological tool. Not all questionnaires should be dismissed out of hand, because they can elicit useful information for public bodies and others. I was therefore sorry to hear him adopt such a dogmatic position. I throw the occasional questionnaire away, but such documents should be examined on their merit.
    I hope that the Minister will take cognisance of some of the mistakes made by Governments in the Irish Republic, which has much more experience of referendums than we have. In recent years, as the Minister knows, there has been huge controversy about setting questions in referendums in the Irish Republic. For example, there was a recent referendum on the controversial issue of abortion, and controversy surrounded setting the question for the referendum on divorce.
    Mr. Bercow: I agree with the thrust of the hon. Gentleman's comments. Does he agree that one useful test of the fairness of a referendum question is whether the wording is acceptable to a professionally commissioned opinion pollster?
    Dr. Godman: I am being too agreeable this afternoon. I agree that setting the question—whether in a social science research questionnaire, of which I have some experience, or, more importantly, in a referendum—is very important. It is essential therefore that, whichever party is in power, the electorate perceive referendum questions to be fair and above board. In 10 or 15 years' time, we may have a referendum in Scotland on whether to be independent or to maintain the United Kingdom, if I can call it that. As the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, there is nothing worse than a loaded question. We are dealing with a smart electorate, who are much more intelligent than some hon. Members—none of whom are present today, of course—believe.
    Irrespective of political differences, we all owe it to the electorate to ensure that, when we conduct referendums at regional level, or in Northern Ireland, Scotland or Wales, we can say, "Yes, a fair set of questions is being asked." I agree with the Opposition that the commission could vet the questions that are to be asked in a referendum by a party in power.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: The debate, including the Freudian speech of the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell),
    960
    has been useful. However, I do not necessarily share his cynical view that politicians hold on to power. It could be argued that, given our unwritten constitution and the power of the Executive, abstinence from the abuse of power might sum up the whole of British constitutional history, at least in recent centuries. Perhaps we could argue that academically on another occasion.
    4.15 pm
    I am sorry that the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) feels under-consulted on the Bill. If he wants to meet to discuss its terms and how it might be better framed, I should be more than happy to do so. The hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) made a well-argued case for the question in any referendum to which part VII applies to be set after consultation with the Electoral Commission. Let me say up front that the Government want to reflect on that proposition. I agree that the commission must be seen as impartial and above the fray, and that it is possible to frame questions to achieve a certain result.
    I welcome the fact that amendment No. 45 requires that a referendum question should be determined after consultation with, rather than on the recommendation of, the commission. It must be right that it is ultimately for Parliament to decide the wording of a referendum question. Part VII does not replace the need for separate legislation to authorise the holding of a particular referendum. That legislation will need to determine in particular the wording of the question and the date of the poll. Those are important issues for Parliament to consider.
    Mr. Bercow: I note that the Minister said that, ultimately, it should be for Parliament to decide the question. Does he accept that if the commission recommended a particular question and the Government of the day sought to persuade Parliament to accept an alternative form of words, the least that the Government would owe Parliament and the British public would be an explanation of their reasons for rejecting the recommendation?
    Mr. O'Brien: The Government listen carefully to Parliament and the Home Office has shown repeatedly that it listens to debates in the House with care and notes the strength of the arguments. We reflect on those arguments and are prepared to change our view if they are good, but sometimes they are not so good and we tell people where to get off.
    If the wording of the question were left entirely to the Electoral Commission to determine, the House would be denied its proper role, which it should retain. The Government, therefore, would not agree to the question in a referendum being set or approved by the commission. However, consultation is an entirely different matter. Given the commission' s wider role in ensuring fair play in the conduct of a referendum, I can see merit in the argument made by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire. However, it is worth noting that the Neill committee made no proposals on the commission's involvement in setting a referendum question. That matter was considered in the November 1996 report of the Commission on Conduct of Referendums, chaired by Sir Patrick Nairne, but even it recognised that the wording of the question had to be for Parliament to

    961
    decide. I have listened carefully to the points made in the debate and we want to reflect on the matter. The hon. Gentleman made some sound arguments in favour of the proposition and we shall consider them. In the meantime, I ask him not to press amendment No. 45.
    The proposal in amendment No. 46 would not fit properly into our constitutional arrangements or the scheme set up by the Bill. Other countries have systems in which the Government or a certain number of citizens can require a referendum to be held. Alternatively, the constitution of the country concerned may require a referendum to be held to approve any constitutional change. In such a system it would be natural, and probably inescapable, for all the arrangements for holding the referendum to be put in the hands of a body equivalent to the Electoral Commission, which we are establishing in the Bill.
    However, our system is not of that variety. It has almost invariably been the practice in the past, and seems likely to remain so in the future, that Parliament legislates for a particular referendum on a case-by-case basis. The proposed date on which the referendum would be held is an integral part of the proposition that is presented to Parliament, which Parliament adopts, alters or rejects.
    There is no denying that the date on which a referendum is to be held is itself a political matter. Having it on one date may have consequences that having it on another date would not. Passing that matter over to the Electoral Commission would not transform it from a political to an apolitical question; it would simply mean that a decision of a political character, or at least with heavy political overtones, was being taken by the Electoral Commission rather than by Parliament. That would open it to criticism from political parties, which may feel themselves advantaged or disadvantaged in some way. We do not think that that would be a sensible arrangement or would benefit anyone.
    This issue would be all the more difficult for the Electoral Commission because the amendment provides no criteria to guide it. The only guideline is the one already in the Bill, which provides for a minimum 28-day interval following the determination of applications for designation. The amendment does not, for example, say that the poll is to be held as soon as is practicable thereafter.
    What are the Opposition after? Are they seeking a device to delay a referendum taking place? Well, we shall see. They say that the amendment is to prevent the Government of the day from putting into a Bill a date for a referendum that will best suit their own purposes. However, with no criteria to guide the commission, the obvious implication is that it is expected to ensure that the date of the poll does not unduly favour the Government side, which means that, relatively speaking, it favours the other side. That is asking too much of the commission, and is wrong in principle under our system. Trying to take what is, in many ways, a political decision out of the realm of political debate is not a sensible approach.
    Mr. Bercow: So the Government are motivated by charity.
    Mr. O'Brien: The Government are motivated by the highest standards of national interest and concern.
    962
    Clause 101(3), to which amendment No. 48 relates, is concerned with the possibility that a referendum question may admit more than two possible outcomes. In such circumstances, it may be open to question whether a permitted participant should be designated in respect of each of the possible outcomes. It is conceivable, for example, that one or more of the possible outcomes would be nonsensical.
    An example of that was the 1997 poll on Scottish devolution, in which voters were presented with a two-part ballot paper and asked, first, to indicate whether they agreed or disagreed that there should be a Scottish Parliament, and, secondly, whether they agreed or disagreed that such a Parliament should have tax-varying powers. There were four possible outcomes, at least one of which—no to a Parliament but yes to giving it tax-varying powers—was meaningless in terms of the referendum campaign. Subsection (3) sets out a mechanism whereby it could be directed that no permitted participant be designated in respect of such an outcome.
    The question is how such a decision is arrived at. Subsection (3) requires that the commission be consulted. As amended by amendment 48, such an order could be made only on the recommendation of the commission. In practice, it seems very unlikely that there would be much difference either way. It is difficult to envisage the circumstances in which there could be any real dispute as to whether a particular outcome merited the designation of a permitted participant.
    In principle, I believe that this subsection should remain as it stands. The provisions of part VII start from the premise that the key decisions on whether and when a referendum is held, and the question of policy that the referendum is intended to resolve, are matters for the Government of the day and for Parliament. It is for the commission then to oversee the conduct of the referendum to ensure that, above all, it is fair. Although it is entirely right to consult the commission on the matter, it does not seem right to take that decision entirely out of the hands of the political arena, of the Chamber and of Parliament. I stress the role of Parliament in deciding these matters, as any order made under clause 101(3) is subject to the affirmative resolution procedure.
    In view of what I think the hon. Member for South Staffordshire would agree was a sympathetic response to the amendments—at least on amendment No. 45—I hope that he will feel able to withdraw them.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Ah! The Minister says he hopes that I will feel able to withdraw "them". Well, I am perfectly content to withdraw amendment No. 45. The Minister has given a sympathetic and understanding answer; I believe him to be a man of his word, and I expect an amendment along the lines of amendment No. 45, giving the commission the role that he and I both want it to have, to be tabled on Report. If my inference is correct, we shall not press the amendment to a Division at this point, but, if the Minister does not table a similar amendment on Report, we shall do so then.
    Mr. O'Brien: I want to reflect and consider. Obviously, consultations will be necessary. We spoke earlier of the need to consult devolved Executives, for instance. I am not giving the hon. Gentleman an undertaking; I am saying that I am very sympathetic, but wish to consider the matter

    963
    further and undertake the proper consultations that I am sure he would want me to undertake before proposing such a measure.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: It is early in the afternoon, and I am a man of infinite charity. I am therefore prepared to accept what the Minister has said in regard to amendment No. 45, but I must make plain our belief that my point—echoed, briefly but eloquently, by the hon. Members for Tatton (Mr. Bell), for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), and by my hon. and silver-tongued Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) in his interventions—is important, and that the amendment is important. We want to return to the issue on Report if the Minister does not, and it is only right to give the Committee notice of that.
    The Minister gave an elegantly forensic response to amendment No. 46, but a response that was wholly unsatisfactory to us. There are worries about the timing of referendums, and the Minister was honest enough to admit that timing can influence outcome. Let us look back to the two constitutional referendums that took place in the autumn of 1997. I cannot prove and do not know, but strongly suspect, that, had Wales voted on the same day as Scotland, the result might well have been different. A week later, the result was too close to call: it was so marginal as to be equivalent to a result demanding a recount in a marginal seat. We had the tiniest possible majority for the Welsh Assembly.
    Nothing that I say should be taken to mean that I want to rerun that referendum. Constitutionally speaking, we of course accept that a majority is a majority, and we are doing all in our power to make the Welsh Assembly work; but the concept was not embraced with universal enthusiasm in the Principality. Half the people voted, and of those, nearly half said that they did not want it. I think that, if people had not been to some degree influenced by what I accept was a much more decisive result in Scotland in the previous week, we might well have seen a different result in Wales. That experience underlies our amendment.
    The Minister sought to argue, in a pleasant and plausible manner, that the commission should have no say in the fixing of the date, but we nevertheless believe that it should have a real part to play, for all the reasons that I sought to advance in support of amendment No. 45—reasons with which hon. Members on both sides of the Committee agreed. We want the commission to be widely respected throughout the country. We want it to have a real role, which we think can be complete only if it can influence both the wording of the question and the date.
    4.30 pm
    Therefore, although I am prepared, for the reasons that I have advanced, to withdraw amendment No. 45 and will not press amendment No. 48 to a vote because the argument is finely balanced. We do not agree with the Minister, but we do not seek to divide the Committee on every amendment. We believe that there is a point of real substance in amendment No. 46. The Committee should be given the opportunity to vote on it. At the appropriate time, therefore, I would wish to call a Division on amendment No. 46.
    964
    I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 96

    REFERENDUM PERIOD
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I do not want to take up the Committee's time, but we should widen the discussion a little to look at what clauses 96 and 97 contain, in the absence of amendment No. 46 which we discussed earlier. Clause 97 is of particular concern.
    As the Committee will be aware, the whole purpose of the legislation is to establish a set of ground rules. It provides for fairness between the respective parties participating in a referendum campaign. As some of the clauses concern the provision of funding to one side or another, fairness is essential—above all, fairness for a campaign to get off the ground to put its case.
    Clause 97 is linked to clause 96. There are two provisions. Clause 96 provides for a period not exceeding six months from when the draft of an order comes in to the date of a poll, but, crucially, clause 97 provides that
    "the date so fixed shall not be earlier than 28 days after the end of the period"
    in which the various parties participating in the campaign have been identified. If it were taken to its absolute conclusion, the 28-day period would be very short.
    After designation, I would find it hard to imagine getting a national campaign off the ground with funds in only 28 days. I think that the Minister would agree that that is the absolute minimum period in which a referendum campaign could properly take place and be described as fair, yet clause 97 will not apply to a referendum where the date of the poll is specified in the Act.
    The explanatory notes put it in a way that the Minister might say is a little disingenuous:
    "Nonetheless, the expectation in such cases will similarly be that there will be at least 28 days for campaigning following the designation of campaign organisations."
    That fills me with some concern. We are enacting complex legislation, some issues in which have taken up much time upstairs in Committee and which we have tried as best we can to speed through, yet we are left with a clause—clause 97—that the Minister would have to agree could be circumvented at will by a Government who wished to do so. All they would have to do would be to designate in the Act that the period concerned was reduced to 10 days, five days or four days. What is the purpose of the Bill if it is not to set a fair framework? Yet, as things stand, what I have outlined could easily happen: it will not matter how much funding is provided to the campaign that the Government do not like because, in reality, the campaign will never have an opportunity to get off the ground.
    I should therefore be grateful if the Minister could comment on that issue as we debate the two clauses, but particularly clause 97. It might also give him pause for thought in relation to amendment No. 46, to which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) spoke earlier and which was dismissed

    965
    rather out of hand by the Minister as being "unnecessary". The Minister said that those are political decisions—of course they are political decisions—but the whole purpose of the legislation is to remove party politics from, and introduce a note of fairness into, proceedings.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I am listening very carefully to my hon. Friend's comments. I wonder whether his interpretation of the Bill is such that he believes that the 28-day period specified in clause 97 is relevant also to the powers that the Government would have to intervene and to make their case? Is it part of the quarantine period that the Government would have applied in communicating their own point of view? If so, such a period is not only very short, but highly relevant.
    Mr. Grieve: My hon. Friend has a good point. The clauses are complex, but the Minister may care to enlighten us. Certainly there is a whole series of mechanisms of interlinked timings. Part of that is the quarantine for the Government, which would run up to the time of the referendum. I would assume, therefore, that that is the time in which the umbrella organisations are up and running and the Government have no part in the proceedings. If I am wrong about that, the Minister will enlighten me.
    The point I was making—my hon. Friend has rightly just added another element to it—is that, if in fact we are leaving open the opportunity for the House or a Government using their majority to specify in an Act a shorter period, one might well ask why on earth we are being bothered with passing this complicated legislation with all these rules. Without so much as altering this Bill or having a debate on whether its provisions should be changed, it would be possible for a Government who wished to do so completely to circumvent the purpose that the legislation is designed to achieve. That is a matter of concern.
    Why bother to have the Electoral Commission's input into referendums if the Government could, with a short wave of the hand, simply introduce a referendum Bill stating that these clauses will not in reality have effect?
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: We are considering clauses 96 and 97. In clause 96, we are ensuring that we establish a basis for subsequent clauses, in part VII, such as those providing for the designation of umbrella groups and for expenditure restrictions. Those later clauses lean heavily on the concept of there being a defined referendum period in which the provisions will apply.
    The purpose of clause 96 is to establish how the referendum period is to be calculated. The main provision is in subsection (4) and applies to the great majority of cases in which the date of a referendum poll is specified in a Bill. It is an important point. Parliament will decide the date of the great majority of referendums. Therefore, the length of time for a campaign will be a matter for political discussion in this place.
    If a Government were to seek to introduce a Bill attempting unfairly to constrain the period for the public to consider a debate, the public would make a judgment
    966
    on the integrity and proper behaviour of that Government. Anyone who sought to manipulate the electorate in quite that way would undoubtedly be judged by the electorate.
    Mr. Grieve: Is it not the purpose of this legislation to impose a little fetter on the Government's ability to do that, or have I completely misunderstood why I have spent the past four weeks upstairs in Committee?
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman knows well—he is a lawyer; he knows perfectly well—that the Bill cannot bind a future Parliament or prevent another Bill from being introduced that makes entirely different provision. He also knows that any Government who introduce legislation on a referendum will in all probability be raising a highly politically charged issue, and that the electorate will be very well briefed on the way in which the Government are handling the matter. If it is clear that a Government are seeking to fix the referendum—in other words to fix the voters—the electorate will not be terribly pleased. Any Government would be well aware of that.
    Any future Bill providing for a referendum could override this Bill. However, we believe that a minimum campaigning period should be 28 days. General election campaigns can be of a similar length. In the past—although not in 1997—Prime Ministers have often concluded that 28 days is highly adequate for the electorate to decide which way they want to vote in a general election. I suspect that that view has not escaped the minds of Conservative Prime Ministers in the past couple of decades.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: The hon. Gentleman puts his case with disarming charm, but he knows that when a Government have a huge majority, as his Government currently enjoy, they can get away with whatever they want. We do not have a written constitution providing for qualified majority voting and a two-thirds vote in Parliament before a constitutional issue can be decided. If the Government decide that they are going to do something and they have a majority such as the present Government's, they can do it. That is why we are anxious for amendment No. 46, which we shall shortly press to a Division, to be inserted in the Bill and why we take the line that we do on these clauses.
    Mr. O'Brien: That brings me back to the first point that I made in reply to the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell). I disagreed with his cynical view about politicians and suggested that it was arguable that the history of our unwritten constitution was one of abstinence from the abuse of power by various Governments, taking cognisance of the fact that they are answerable to the electorate who will form a view about how they behave. They have to behave reasonably and deal with the electorate in a way that commands broad support. Every Member of Parliament is aware that a Government's majority—and their seat—can be taken away by the electorate. The majority in the Commons may be big or small, but even with a majority of one, a Government have power if they can carry the House. The size of a majority is not the issue. The issue is whether a Government can command support. Every Member of Parliament has to deal with their constituents and will be aware of the how the public will view the Government if the Government seek to abuse their power.

    967
    One can hold all sorts of paranoid views about any Government, but Governments have to manage the political debate in a way that commands support in the country, as we seek to do. No doubt, in their own way, previous Governments sought to do the same, however well they have managed it. No Parliament can bind another. Some of the concerns expressed by Opposition Members are not of the real world.
    Mr. Stunell: The Minister has missed the central point of the argument. Politics in this country is comparatively free of the abuses seen in some other democracies—and certainly in non-democracies—not because we have a better class of politician, but because we have a strong framework of regulation. The point of the Bill is to ensure that we have a strong framework for referendums, which are a new constitutional development. We are good because we are made good, not because we are good by intention. I hope that the Minister understands that that is how the system works. It is important to get these rules and regulations right, so that in 10 or 15 years we can still say the same thing.
    4.45 pm
    Mr. O'Brien: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman has not quite understood the nature of the debate between the two Front-Bench spokesmen about whether everything has to be in the Bill so that it can become the basis of all future referendums. The reality is that Parliament makes laws. We do not simply have a system of regulations; we have a Parliament that is answerable to the electorate and a Government who have to respond to the electorate and are ultimately dependent on the electorate for their future.
    Mr. Richard Shepherd: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way when I have finished this point.
    Conservative Members have suggested that the Bill must somehow cover everything. That is not necessary. We have to ensure that the Bill provides a basis, a template or a foundation for future referendum campaigns so that, broadly speaking, we know how they should be conducted. The detail will be decided by the House in the normal way—by the passing of a Bill. The broad-based political debate will take place then. That is why the concerns that have been raised about clauses 96 and 97 are unfounded.
    Most of the arguments were based on the idea that a referendum campaign will last for 28 days. As I have said, 28 days is not a short time for a general election campaign. The Bill envisages that, at least in normal circumstances, there should be at least a further 14 days for preparing the various umbrella groups that might be needed. As there will probably be a fixed date, there will be months of lead-in time to any referendum.
    Referendums do not appear from nowhere. Many of them have gestations of many years. Indeed, it is arguable that we are now into a long gestation period in respect of deciding whether to join the single currency. Almost invariably, there is a long time to consider such issues.
    968
    The hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) asked me to give way.
    Mr. Shepherd: I would rather make my own speech.
    Sir Michael Spicer rose—
    Mr. O'Brien: Then I shall give way to the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer).
    Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister explain the Government quarantine period? Are the 28 days the period during which the Government may not interfere, get involved financially or proselytise? Does he envisage a further period, or will he say that that is a matter for a future Bill, in which case what is the point of this one?
    Mr. O'Brien: The quarantine period is covered later in the Bill, when we shall debate whether the Government could use their influence over civil servants. I must be careful what I say as I am conscious that you will rule us out of order, Mr. Martin, if we discuss a clause that we have not reached. We shall have the opportunity to debate the quarantine period, but our view is that it should be the same as it is during a general election campaign. It has never been a matter of great controversy in the past and I suspect that it need not be in future.
    We believe that clauses 96 and 97 provide a framework. They do no more than that, and issues relating to the conduct of future referendums will be dealt with at the time by legislation that will determine the detail of those referendums.
    Mr. Shepherd: The Minister is quite right to say that Governments come and go and that the British public can take a view on whether they wish to continue with an Administration. The 28 days may be appropriate for that. However, the Minister will also be perfectly well aware that referendums are an attempt at a permanent settlement, and are therefore different in character from general elections. I cite that fact that because my party—that is why I support it so vigorously—is concerned about the position of the pound.
    In the treaty that will be put to the British people—if the Government fulfil their pledge and the conditions are met—it is intended that the judgment taken by the British electorate should be irrevocable and for all time. "Irrevocable" and "irreversible" are the actual words of the treaty. In a general election, the British people can say whether they wish to continue to be governed by new Labour, but after a referendum the terms are set in concrete. The point that my Front-Bench colleagues have made is valid, and the Minister should reflect on his counter-argument that a referendum campaign is equivalent to a general election campaign, because of the nature of the referendum decision. That is why I support my right hon. and hon. Friends on the issue.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 97

    DATE OF POLL
    Amendment proposed: No. 46, page 61, line 33, leave out from beginning to 'the' in line 34 and insert—
    'The date of the poll in the case of any referendum to which this Part applies shall be fixed by the Commission, and'.—[Sir Patrick Cormack.]
    Question put, That the amendment be made:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 176, Noes 323.

    Division No. 78]

    [4.51 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Allan, Richard

    Fraser, Christopher

    Amess, David

    Gale, Roger

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Garnier, Edward

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Gibb, Nick

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Gill, Christopher

    Baker, Norman

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Baldry, Tony

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Ballard, Jackie

    Gray, James

    Beggs, Roy

    Green, Damian

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Greenway, John

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Grieve, Dominic

    Bercow, John

    Hague, Rt Hon William

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Blunt, Crispin

    Hammond, Philip

    Boswell, Tim

    Hancock, Mike

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Hawkins, Nick

    Brady, Graham

    Hayes, John

    Brake, Tom

    Heald, Oliver

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Brazier, Julian

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Breed, Colin

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Horam, John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Hunter, Andrew

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Burns, Simon

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Burstow, Paul

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Butterfill, John

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Cash, William

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Kennedy, Rt Hon Charles (Ross Skye & Inverness W)

    Chidgey, David

    Key, Robert

    Chope, Christopher

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Clappison, James

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Lansley, Andrew

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Leigh, Edward

    Collins, Tim

    Letwin, Oliver

    Colvin, Michael

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Lidington, David

    Cotter, Brian

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Cran, James

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Loughton, Tim

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Luff, Peter

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Duncan, Alan

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Evans, Nigel

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Faber, David

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Fabricant, Michael

    Madel, Sir David

    Fallon, Michael

    Malins, Humfrey

    Feam, Ronnie

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Flight, Howard

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Moore, Michael

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Moss, Malcolm

    970

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Syms, Robert

    Norman, Archie

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Oaten, Mark

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Ottaway, Richard

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Page, Richard

    Townend, John

    Paice, James

    Tredinnick, David

    Paterson, Owen

    Trend, Michael

    Pickles, Eric

    Tyler, Paul

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Randall, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Walter, Robert

    Rendel, David

    Wardle, Charles

    Robertson, Laurence

    Waterson, Nigel

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Webb, Steve

    Ruffley, David

    Welsh, Andrew

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Whittingdale, John

    Sanders, Adrian

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Wilkinson, John

    Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

    Willetts, David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Willis, Phil

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Wilshire, David

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Soames, Nicholas

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Yeo, Tim

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Spring, Richard

    Streeter, Gary

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Swayne, Desmond

    Mr. Stephen Day.

    NOES

    Ainger, Nick

    Cann, Jamie

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Caplin, Ivor

    Alexander, Douglas

    Casale, Roger

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Caton, Martin

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Cawsey, Ian

    Ashton, Joe

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Clapham, Michael

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Austin, John

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Banks, Tony

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Barnes, Harry

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Barron, Kevin

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Coaker, Vemon

    Beard, Nigel

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Cohen, Harry

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Coleman, Iain

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Colman, Tony

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Connarty, Michael

    Benton, Joe

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Cooper, Yvette

    Berry, Roger

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Best, Harold

    Corston, Jean

    Betts, Clive

    Cousins, Jim

    Blackman, Liz

    Cox, Tom

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Cranston, Ross

    Blizzard, Bob

    Crausby, David

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Borrow, David

    Cummings, John

    Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Dalyell, Tam

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Darvill, Keith

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Browne, Desmond

    Davidson, Ian

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Burden, Richard

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Burgon, Colin

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Donohoe, Brian H

    971

    Doran, Frank

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Dowd, Jim

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Drew, David

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Edwards, Huw

    Kemp, Fraser

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kidney, David

    Etherington, Bill

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Fisher, Mark

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Ftzsimons, Loma

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Flint Caroline

    Laxton, Bob

    Flynn, Paul

    Lepper, David

    Follett, Barbara

    Leslie, Christopher

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Levitt, Tom

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Fyfe, Maria

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Galloway, George

    Linton, Martin

    Gapes, Mike

    Lock, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gerrard, Neil

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonnell, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McIsaac, Shona

    Gordon, Mrs Eileen

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNulty, Tony

    Grocott, Bruce

    MacShane, Denis

    Grogan, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Gunnell, John

    McWalter, Tony

    Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

    McWilliam, John

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mallaber, Judy

    Hanson, David

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Healey, John

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Heppell, John

    Meale, Alan

    Hesford, Stephen

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hill, Keith

    Miller, Andrew

    Hinchliffe, David

    Mitchell, Austin

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hoey, Kate

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Hood, Jimmy

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Hope, Phil

    Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Morley, Elliot

    Howarth, Alan (Newport E)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Mountford, Kali

    Hutton, John

    Mudie, George

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Illsley, Eric

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Jamieson, David

    Norris, Dan

    Jenkins, Brian

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    O'Neill, Martin

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Pearson, Ian

    Pendry, Tom

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Pike, Peter L

    972

    Plaskitt, James

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Pollard, Kerry

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Pond, Chris

    Stevenson, George

    Pope, Greg

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Pound, Stephen

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Purchase, Ken

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Rammell, Bill

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Rapson, Syd

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Timms, Stephen

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Todd, Mark

    Rogers, Allan

    Touhig, Don

    Trickett, Jon

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Truswell, Paul

    Rooney, Terry

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rowlands, Ted

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Roy, Frank

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Ruane, Chris

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Ruddock, Joan

    Tynan, Bill

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Salter, Martin

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Wareing, Robert N

    Savidge, Malcolm

    White, Brian

    Sawford, Phil

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Wills, Michael

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Winnick, David

    Singh, Marsha

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Skinner, Dennis

    Wise, Audrey

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Woolas, Phil

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Wyatt, Derek

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Snape, Peter

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Mr. David Clelland and

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Mr. Graham Allen.

    Question accordingly negatived.
    Clause 97 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 98

    PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS
    Mr. Walter: I beg to move amendment No. 47, in page 62 line 1, after "individual", insert—
    `registered in an electoral register'.
    The purpose of the Bill is to introduce into our political life a sense of financial propriety and of transparency, and to raise the standards of political life. One of the purposes underlying the Bill is to remove foreign donations from our political life.
    The clause as drafted allows an individual—without qualification—a company, or an unincorporated association to be a permitted participant in a referendum. Such an individual, as a permitted participant, could spend £500,000, out of his own pocket, in a referendum campaign, pursuing the case of one side or the other.

    973
    There are a few leaks in the Bill and that is one of them. The Government plugged it in their original draft of clause 48, which covers permissible donations to political parties. The definition of permissible donors includes
    "an individual registered in an electoral register".
    Neill's original recommendation for that provision was that it should also include
    "those who are eligible to be put on an electoral register in the United Kingdom".
    In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) and I tabled an amendment to try to reincorporate the original Neill recommendation, but it was not accepted because the Government wanted to keep the original wording.
    Clause 81 deals with those who could be registered third parties in an election campaign. In Committee, we found that a third party could simply be an individual. Again, my hon. Friend and I tabled an amendment to expand the provision to include the words
    "an individual registered in an electoral register".
    That is the crux of amendment No. 47.
    I imagine that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office will respond to the debate. I do not want to make his speech for him, but I shall refer to his answer, which he gave me outside the Committee, as to why our amendment to clause 81 in Committee was—and possibly why this amendment will be—unacceptable, even though it would have plugged a worrying leak.
    The Minister's letter to me stated:
    "Turning to clause 81 you correctly inferred that it was possible for a foreign national to be a recognised third party in an election. As I indicated in Committee we have not sought to prohibit foreign nationals resident in the United Kingdom from spending their own money in their own name in order to express their opinion and by extension influence the outcome of an election."
    He then came to the crux of the matter. The letter continued:
    "To do so would be a contravention of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which provides for the right to freedom of expression including the freedom to impart information). It is one thing to prevent a foreign national donating money to a political party or other organisation to help it to further its political objectives, but it is quite another thing to place absolute restrictions on the ability of a person to publicise his or her own views."
    The problem with that interpretation of the European convention is that the people mentioned in the clause are not those who spread their thoughts around the country in the furtherance of a political idea without supporting a specific candidate for election. The clause refers to registered permitted participants who may be on one side or other of the question on the referendum paper. They are much more closely involved in the process and in securing the outcome of the referendum. If we draw an election analogy, it is almost as though they support a specific candidate in a general, Assembly or parliamentary election.
    I will be interested to find whether the Minister will again pray in aid the European convention on human rights. I am not sure whether a permitted participant even has to be resident in the United Kingdom. He could simply stay at Claridge's or the Savoy for the duration of the campaign and use the hotel as his registered office with the Electoral Commission. He could spend £500,000 taking out advertisements in national newspapers in
    974
    favour of the yes or the no vote in a referendum. If he got a few chums to do the same thing, we could be talking about a significant amount of money from foreign sources being committed to one side or the other of a referendum campaign.
    The Bill clearly seeks to exclude foreign financing of our electoral and political processes. Therefore, I suggest that the Government should consider the amendment seriously if the Bill is not to develop an enormous leak, with parcels of up to £500,000 coming into our electoral process from foreign sources. In other circumstances, such as the financing of political parties or of individual candidates at general elections, that would be considered impermissible.
    To stick with the spirit of the Bill and the Neill report, which is to exclude foreign money from our electoral process, I commend the amendment to the Committee. It would add after the word "individual" the phrase
    "registered in an electoral register".
    That would ensure that permitted participants in our referendum campaigns are citizens of the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth or the Irish Republic and are part of the United Kingdom electoral process to the extent that they are registered in an electoral register and prevent foreigners from distorting the result of a referendum in this country.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I wish briefly to support my hon. Friend's argument. If the Bill is left untouched, it will contain the leak that he described and foreign people might become involved in our referendums. Under a wicked Secretary of State, that might mean the foreigners whom he likes best for the purposes of a campaign.
    Clause 98(1)(b)(i) refers to an individual
    "by whom a notification has been given under section 99".
    Sub-paragraph (i) is the only one referred to in the explanatory notes, but sub-paragraph (ii) adds
    "in the case of whom any other prescribed requirements are satisfied".
    The Bill then states:
    "for this purpose 'prescribed' means prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State after consulting the Commission."
    5.15 pm
    We have here the old problem of the Secretary of State having far too many powers and the commission far too few. That is by the by, but unless the amendment is made or assurances are given by the Government, not only will foreigners be able to take part in referendums, but the Secretary of State will be able to choose which foreigners he will allow to take part and which he will ban from taking part. The amendment seems innocent and unimportant but it could be very important. I hope that the Government can reassure us.
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said, the amendment covers ground that the Standing Committee has already covered a couple of times, particularly on clause 81, when a similar amendment was discussed. He and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) said that they are worried because there is a leak in the Bill. I shall try to reassure them on the point about the Secretary of State.

    975
    In a referendum campaign, participants who want to spend more than £10,000 will have to have a dialogue with, and be recognised by, the Electoral Commission. That recognition will then be prescribed by the Secretary of State, so whether he is wicked or benign, he will act on the commission's advice, and it is not a question of him prescribing his friends or enemies.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Advice will be given, but it may not be accepted, and ultimately the Bill leaves it to the Secretary of State to decide whether to take the advice.
    Mr. Tipping: The prescription is recommended by the commission and there is no intention that the Secretary of State should not take the prescription. I can see that the hon. Gentleman is unhappy with that answer, and while we are still in Committee, I shall have another look at the wording of the Bill. He makes a fair point that the Secretary of State should not be able to prescribe his friends and enemies. I am confident on the point, but I shall consider the wording.
    The hon. Member for North Dorset said that he was not going to make my speech for me, but in effect he did when he took the Committee through my letter to him of 12 February. For the record and for members of the Committee, I shall repeat what I said. I stated:
    "we have not sought to prohibit foreign nationals resident in the United Kingdom from spending their own money in their own name in order to express their opinion and by extension influence the outcome of an election"—
    or referendum. I went on to say:
    "To do so would be a contravention of Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which provides for the right to freedom of expression including the freedom to impart information)."
    The hon. Gentleman said that there is a difference in the Bill between clause 48, which we have discussed and which deals with money being given to a political party by a foreign source, and this part, on which I am advised that article 10 would prohibit the Government stopping foreign donations or involvement in a referendum campaign.
    Mr. Walter: Will the Minister give a little more clarification on that point? If article 10 of the European convention prohibits such action under the right to freedom of expression, would it not prohibit the Government limiting the expenditure to £500,000?
    Mr. Tipping: I am not exactly sure what point the hon. Gentleman is making. Under the Bill, a foreign national—or, to use his phrase, a foreigner—could participate in a referendum by incurring expenses up to any sum that he desires.
    The hon. Gentleman presses me on article 10 of the convention. We have looked at the issue again since he raised it in Committee upstairs, and I shall take him through some more of the legal advice. The very same issues were examined by the European Court of Human Rights in the Bowman judgment, which, as he knows, informs part of the Bill. The implications of the judgment are considered in paragraphs 10.51 to 10.71 of the Neill report.
    The court held that the existing £5 limit on third-party expenditure in section 75 of the Representation of the People Act 1983 was so low that it amounted to an
    976
    unjustified restriction on freedom of expression. I am advised that the court would undoubtedly take the same view of any prohibition or undue restriction on foreign nationals resident in the UK incurring controlled expenditure under part VI or referendum expenses under part VII.
    The hon. Gentleman described—I shall not argue with him—a foreign national who is resident in the UK spending large sums of money in the referendum campaign. That clearly is a possibility. How far it will translate into reality and whether, if I may use the phrase, the person would bring his mates to participate, is moot.
    Legal advice is very clear. The Government have sought to—and through clause 48 will—stop political parties receiving money from foreign sources. I think that the phrase that we used upstairs was firetight or watertight; there was some doubt about the correct phraseology. The possibility has been plugged and secured.
    I sense the hon. Gentleman's unhappiness on the matter. I feel some uncomfortableness across the Chamber, but I have presented the reality. Article 10 prohibits us accepting the amendment as drafted. I have tried to reassure him, but I suspect that I have not. Having discussed the matter under clause 41 and clause 81 and in this debate, I shall not be able to reassure him further. He may wish to return to the issue.
    Mr. Walter: The Minister has not reassured me. In fact, as the debate went on, I became more worried by the provision. It appears—he has not said anything to reassure me otherwise—that although we can limit the amount of money that an individual permitted participant who is a UK citizen spends to £500,000, a permitted participant who is not a UK citizen and not on the electoral register could spend what he liked.
    So, foreigners—I use the term advisedly, because we are talking about foreigners participating in our democratic process—may register as permitted participants and spend whatever they like on ensuring the outcome of a referendum that they, rather than United Kingdom citizens, want. Indeed, under the European convention, they may not even have to register as permitted participants.
    I suspect that I should be taking this debate elsewhere; this Bill will not overrule European Court judgments or supersede the treaty that established the European convention on human rights.
    What we have discovered is a leak. Although we can control the amount of money given to political parties, we cannot control the amount spent by third parties in the political process, or the amount spent by permitted or even non-permitted participants in a referendum campaign.
    Mr. John Hayes: Is not that ironic, given the fact that there is likely to be heightened interest from abroad in elections in this country, and certainly in referendums? Surely we should be exerting more control and having more sensible and enlightened regulation, rather than freeing up the process. That is nonsense. Are we not travelling in entirely the wrong direction?
    Mr. Walter: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who put the case more succinctly than I had. The Bill is supposed to enable us to clean up our act with regard to foreign

    977
    donations, yet outside the registered political parties and the candidates nominated in elections, foreigners can come into the country and spend whatever they like to achieve the outcome of an election or referendum that best suits them.
    We may have a referendum in the not too distant future, although I suspect not during this Parliament, when foreigners may well have a vested interest in the outcome, and may want to make a contribution to the debate in the form of large cheques, while watching the outcome from their suite at the Savoy.
    The situation is worrying, but the objections that I have raised are outside the scope of the Bill, so I reluctantly beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Grieve: The Committee has noted that a series of amendments dealing with the participation of European Union institutions was not moved. In view of the Minister's comments in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter), one can understand why.
    The Minister would reply that such a fetter on the activities of any organisation was redundant, because although such an organisation could not become a permitted participant under our rules, it could continue as an independent operator to spend any amount of money to further a particular cause. I am sure that the Minister will confirm that.
    Some interesting questions arise, which it may be worth flagging up in the debate on clause 98 stand part, as they will feature later in our deliberations.
    Clause 111 places a ceiling limit on expenditure by the permitted participants in referendum campaigns. The aim is to prevent a free spending competition to determine the outcome of a referendum. We did the same upstairs in Committee in relation to elections. It is an important issue. If I understand correctly the answers that the Minister gave my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset on amendment No. 47, it is clear that there is no mechanism whereby a ceiling can be imposed on spending money to influence a referendum result. All people need to do if they fail to become a permitted participant is to become a loose cannon participant. A foreign organisation cannot be prevented from doing that; it can spend any amount of money it likes.
    Mr. Martin, the House must face the inequalities that such a system is likely to introduce.
    Mr. Graham Allen (Vice-Chamberlain of Her Majesty's Household): Mr. Martin has gone.
    5.30 pm
    Mr. Grieve: I apologise, Sir Alan. You appeared in the Chair so magically that I was not as conscious of your arrival as I should have been.
    Let us take an example that the Minister might consider fair. Let us consider a referendum that involves a national interest and an international dimension. One side has no international support, and its members would say that they
    978
    stood for the national interest; the other side is backed by an international interest. The national participants will be fettered; they will have to be permitted participants. Those who are not will be unable to contribute. The national participants will also be fettered in the amount of money that they can spend because clause 111, which is intimately linked to clause 98, places a ceiling on their expenditure.
    There will be no such problem for the international participants. Spending will be capped for the national campaign and the permitted participants who are based in this country, while the sky will be the limit on the expenditure incurred by international participants, whose impact on a referendum campaign could be as great as that of national participants, in terms of taking out advertisements and distributing literature.
    Will the Minister tell the Committee how the clause will work in practice? His reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset calls into question the clause and the provisions that deal with referendums. We are about to create an extraordinarily unequal system. Far from putting a ceiling on expenditure and properly regulating participants, we will create a system that regulates some participants, who have the misfortune to be British nationals, and allows international participants to do as they please. I wonder whether the Government have taken that on board.
    I appreciate that we are considering a difficult subject and that the creation of an unequal system was not the intention when the Neill committee reported or when the Government first considered the measure. However, a coach and horses have been driven through the Bill's provisions on referendums. The problem is different from those we faced over elections. I would therefore be grateful for the Minister's view on whether clause 98 should remain in the Bill and on whether the Government will go back to the drawing board and return with fresh suggestions.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I want to reinforce the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve). When we considered other provisions in Standing Committee, we were worried about the framing of clauses that might be deemed to be motivated by the circumstances of a specific, wealthy individual donor. Today, we are considering a clause which could be regarded as tailor-made to allow the European Union, as an international body, to overwhelm completely, through the money that it spends on propaganda, the strict limits on such expenditure that the Bill imposes on individual parties that may campaign on the referendum question at issue.
    What would be the point of having such strict limits on the sums that the national parties on either side of the argument would be allowed to raise and spend—for example, in a referendum on the single currency—if the European Union, as an international institution and in support of those who wanted Britain to join, could outspend the whole lot of them put together, and multiplied by an untold factor? That would not only drive a coach and horses through the restrictions, but show up the entire system as skewed.
    At Prime Minister's Question Time a couple of weeks ago, I raised the issue of public money being spent by each side in a referendum campaign—for and against—

    979
    and he went to considerable lengths to try to reassure me and the House that the system is fair. This country faces the possibility of a referendum on the single currency—which will determine what happens to our political and economic independence, perhaps irrevocably—and the parties are being told that they can spend only up to certain limits. However, the EU and its institutions could outspend the lot of them.
    I do not know why my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) were unable to move amendment No. 14, but I am sure that it has nothing to do with the merits of the case. If the Bill is to include meaningful provisions on referendums, the Minister must show the same consideration, fairness and concern on the Floor of the House as he manifestly showed in Committee—time and again, I am delighted to say.
    Sir Michael Spicer: My hon. Friends and I are not displaying paranoia and we feel strongly that the European Union would clearly have a strong vested interest in the outcome of a referendum on the single currency. There is no question about that, so the issue is whether it is right and proper for it to be able to become directly or indirectly involved—financially, in particular—in that referendum.
    If the clause is not amended or if the Government do not give us the assurance that they will think again, the EU could become involved in two ways. If it was a permitted participant, it would be allowed to spend up to the limit of £500,000 or whatever, which is unacceptable in itself, or it could stay out and, as it would not be a permitted participant, the restrictions in the Bill would not apply. That is particularly worrying because under these arrangements "prescribed" means
    "prescribed by regulations made by the Secretary of State after consulting";
    and the Minister has said that consulting means no more than that. The Secretary of State would not have to take the advice he was given and ultimately would determine who was and was not a permitted participant. He could decide not to allow the EU to be a permitted participant and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) said, it would be allowed an unlimited run of expenditure and involvement in the campaign from the sidelines.
    I am grateful to the Minister for saying that he will consider prescription and how it works—he was extremely helpful—and I hope that in this context, as in others, he will give the commission greater independence vis-a-vis the Secretary of State. However, that is a separate issue.
    I hope that the Minister will consider this point. Whatever side of the argument one is on, it clearly would be wrong for a body outside this country with a direct interest in the result to be allowed for one reason or another—there are at least two opposite reasons—to be a participant and deeply involved in a referendum under the terms of the clause.
    I hope that the Minister, in the spirit in which he responded earlier on this matter, will agree to consider this issue carefully; specifically, the question of not allowing the European Union to become involved directly or indirectly through companies or unincorporated associations, or by giving money on the side to permitted
    980
    participants. That could completely distort a future referendum campaign—or referendum struggle—and it would be in the interests of democracy to consider this matter carefully.
    Mr. Hayes: I want to refer particularly to the comment of my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) about the possible involvement of commercial organisations. Some multinational companies will have a vested commercial interest in the outcome of such a referendum campaign, and would have a great deal of money to commit to a campaign in their self-interest. I am particularly concerned that we are loosening the regulation in that respect, whereas we should be tightening it.
    This provision is expressly against the will of the Neill committee. All hon. Members who value democratic fairness and political decency will be intimately familiar with pages 160 to 170 of the Neill report. When Neill studied this issue, he referred to the 1975 referendum campaign, when we voted to stay in the European Union. The report explicitly states that the Britain in Europe campaign
    "vastly outspent the National Referendum Campaign, by a factor of one to 20 … There is also the danger, if there is lavish spending on one or more sides, that the impression will be given that the Yes and No campaigns are trying to 'buy' people's votes."
    Buying people's votes is one thing, but the buying of people's votes by organisations which are outside this country, which do not necessarily have this country's national interests at heart and which may, in addition, have a commercial, financial or pecuniary interest in the outcome of any such campaign is entirely undesirable. It is certainly not in the spirit of the Neill report or in the best interests of good democratic practice in this country.
    I am surprised that the clause does not address the matters considered by Neill. I am also surprised that the Government want to be associated with a measure that will be perceived outside the House as a diminution of good, fair, democratic politics.
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: It would be perverse for a Bill that is specifically aimed at excluding the possibility of foreign donations to our political process and which seeks properly to limit the permitted participants' ability to spend, at the same time to leave international participants entirely unrestrained in the amounts that they can spend. Those concerns are not academic: they are very real, given the prospect of a referendum early in the next Parliament. It certainly has not escaped my notice that the European Union is taking a more elaborate interest than hitherto—
    Mr. Tipping: I just want to clarify the point that the hon. Gentleman made. He said that individuals could give unlimited amounts of money. His hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) referred to that as well. I remind him that clause 110(2) makes it a criminal offence for anyone to give more than £10,000.
    Mr. Swayne: I am aware of that provision in clause 110. I was more concerned about institutions, such as the European Union, than about individuals.
    As we have now raised the prospect of a referendum, it is clear that the European Union is taking more than a close interest in the politics of participant member states.

    981
    5.45 pm
    Let me say in passing that I support the British Government's view of recent events in Austria, and therefore, by implication, the view taken by most other European member states. I am, however, deeply alarmed by the view of those events taken by the European Commission. Members of the Commission are, of course, civil servants. My fear is that a similar interest will be taken in any referendum that we might hold in regard to our own national interests, especially a referendum on whether we should join the single European currency. The issue will undoubtedly be of great interest to the European Union, and I very much fear that it will be able to spend without limit in attempting to influence us.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Spend our money, that is.
    Mr. Swayne: Indeed; but there will be those who spend their own money as well. My hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) mentioned companies, and we already know that companies—foreign companies—have been lining up on both sides of the argument, threatening us with the withdrawal of investment should we decide not to go into the currency, or with the prospect of uncompetitiveness should we decide to do so. Companies on either side of the argument might seek to put their money where their mouth is, and I do not believe that that would be healthy for the British democratic process—although I think that the totality of expenditure would be swamped by the European Union's potential to spend in this respect.
    Let me take the Committee a step further, to the prospect of another referendum. It would be entirely legitimate for us to hold a referendum on the question of continued membership of the European Union; it is, after all, some 25 years since we held such a referendum. I am sure that you, Sir Alan, like me, would not espouse some form of African democracy: "one man, one vote … once", which would not allow future generations to decide the matter. Clearly, such a referendum would be hugely significant to the European Union itself.
    What assurance can the Minister give that the Government have thought the issue through? What limit can be placed on the European Union's ability to spend what is, as my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) pointed out, our money, to influence our decisions on our national interest?
    These are hugely important issues, and I hope that the Minister will be able to reassure me.
    Mr. Martin Bell: I shall be brief.
    I am aware that the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, thinks that most Independents are Conservatives in disguise. This is rather embarrassing for me, because there has been a great deal of merit in what Conservatives have said today.
    Mr. Tipping: I said that, in my experience, most Independents were Conservatives in disguise. There are, of course, exceptions.
    Mr. Bell: We hope to enlarge the Minister's experience shortly.
    The Bill and the Neill report are about purging the British political system of the corruption of money, and we should not need too much persuasion of the need for
    982
    that. I envisage a difficult situation if a referendum is held binding the British people more or less in perpetuity. There appears to be an imbalance, in that money is flooding in from one side rather than the other.
    Mr. Swayne: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the bitter taste left in many mouths by the hugely disproportionate spending on the occasion of the 1975 referendum, when the "yes" campaign was able to outspend the "no" campaign by a factor of 20 to one?
    Mr. Bell: I am well aware of it. That is precisely the kind of imbalance that the Bill tries to address. No referendum will work, or will be seen to be democratic, unless the losing side accepts its validity: that is the test of a referendum, and we must ensure that the Bill meets it.
    Mr. Tipping: These points are extremely important. The first substantive point to make is that, in any referendum campaign, it will not be possible to ensure that both sides are equally balanced. There are discussions about that. Many hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber feel that, in fairness—
    Dr. Julian Lewis rose
    Mr. Tipping: Let me make just a bit of progress.
    Both sides should be evenly balanced, but we all live in the political world and we know that that will not be possible. Different organisations, individuals and participants will want to contribute, and one side of the argument will try to develop resources. One of the Bill's provisions is to ensure that there is a second side—that the commission has resources to enable an opposition campaign to go forward—but we must recognise that individuals, parties and companies can collectively work together, spend and campaign. Given that, one of the Bill's important provisions is to place a cap on what parties, companies or individuals can spend. As the Neill committee put it in relation to the general election, it is a way to reduce the arms race.
    Dr. Lewis: I am glad that the Minister has given way at this point. What is the point of placing a cap on what the parties on either side of a referendum campaign can spend if the institutions of an international organisation such as the European Union do not face such a limitation?
    Mr. Tipping: I know that the hon. Gentleman gets excited by Europe—he tried to intervene after three or four sentences. I shall come to the point about the European Union, which is extremely important and excites the hon. Gentleman and some of his colleagues. We need to be aware of it, to look at it, to act rationally on it and to engage in some grown-up politics; we should not engage in yah-boo politics about the EU and the euro. The more mature consideration and debate on such matters are, the better. He and the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), who takes important, long-standing and strong views on European matters, are rightly making those points.
    Mr. Grieve rose
    Mr. Tipping: I give way before I get to the EU.
    Mr. Grieve: Perhaps I can spare the Minister from necessarily focusing on the EU, which is but one example.

    983
    There is a need for clarification and I should be grateful if the Minister could provide it as soon as possible. Clause 110 says that those who are not permitted participants will commit a criminal offence if they spend more than £10,000 to influence the campaign. Does that apply to foreign nationals or institutions, or would that breach the European convention on human rights?
    Mr. Tipping: It applies. I made the point—I will do so more substantively in a moment—to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). I reminded him that there is a criminal offence. Anyone who spends more than £10,000 and is not a permitted participant is committing a criminal offence.
    Mr. Walter: The Minister will forgive me for intervening. He has used article 10 of the European convention on human rights. I have managed to get a copy from the Vote Office, and it says:
    "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
    Does that not mean that the Bill contravenes the convention?
    Mr. Tipping: No. It reinforces my points to the hon. Gentleman during an earlier debate. He has quoted article 10, which reinforces all my points. I know that he did not like those points, but it reinforces them. Article 10 guarantees rights and freedoms, but, as I have said, the £10,000 restriction applies to individuals.
    I shall not address amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, which were not discussed, but come to the issue of the EU. Hon. Members ask fairly: how we can ensure that the EU does not become involved? I say at the outset that this is an enabling Bill. It is not designed to set up a referendum on the EU. We are not at that stage yet, and we may not reach that stage for some time—if some hon. Members have their way, we shall never reach that stage. It is an enabling Bill that sets out the context—my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department called it a template. The Bill is not about a campaign for the euro.
    Hon. Members say to me, "How can we ensure that the EU does not become involved in these matters?" The EU can, of course, run information campaigns. Indeed, it does run such campaigns. Some of us may not like some of what it says in those campaigns, but it has the right to say it.
    When, or if, we get to a referendum campaign on the EU, the best way to be sure that the EU will not become involved is to look at the Bill and to be aware that it is a matter for the British people, the British Parliament and British parties. It is inconceivable that the European Commission, the European Parliament or others will become involved in a campaign because they know that it would be counterproductive.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend is coming to the point that I want to raise. If one followed the logic of Opposition Members' claims that the Commission is an unpopular institution and their figures on the popularity of the euro, it would play right
    984
    into their hands if the Commission were to spend a penny piece on supporting such a change, so it is a complete and utter red herring.
    Dr. Julian Lewis rose—
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman will have to intervene on me, rather than on my hon. Friend. I can see that he is getting excited again. We are a long way from the referendum campaign, although I am looking forward to it. I can see that he is looking forward to it, too; he can hardly contain himself. My hon. Friend, however, is right.
    Dr. Lewis: I assure the Minister that he has not seen me even begin to get excited. Does he expect us to think that he is naive enough to believe that the European Commission would directly stand up and dish out the currency, whichever particular brand it was using, and intervene in the campaign openly? Of course it would not. It would operate by channelling funds through all sorts of intermediate institutions and pressure groups. Bodies would spring up like mushrooms, apparently independent but covertly funded by our money to defeat the interest of our people.
    Mr. Tipping: I should hate to see the hon. Gentleman consumed by passion. We see him getting excited tonight, but, when he becomes passionate, that will be a sight for someone—perhaps behind closed doors. I shall develop my hon. Friend's point. Rather than being naive, we are fully aware of the political reality, which is that if the EU itself, or through its agents, companies or some shadowy organisation, became involved, that would work against it. It is absolutely clear that referendums, whatever the questions concerned, are about the British people deciding. That is the purpose of a referendum, and that is why we are going down this route. I know that that reassures neither the hon. Gentleman nor some of his hon. Friends.
    6 pm
    Mr. Hayes: I have no desire to see either the Minister or my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) excited. The Minister underestimates the Committee's intelligence when he says that the Bill is only enabling legislation and not specific provision for a specific referendum. Surely he will acknowledge that the framework and tone that are established in the Bill, and the messages and signals that are broadcast by it, are vital. The Bill is an opportunity to get the matter right, even if there will be subsequent legislation on a specific situation.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman has not followed the debate as closely as some other Opposition Members have. I repeat that the Bill is enabling legislation. It is a new and important step forward and a building block. Before any future referendum, a new Bill will have to be considered by the House. Later in our proceedings on this Bill, we shall discuss the design of some of those Bills. Nevertheless, it is absolutely clear that the wording of any question and, in many cases, the election date, will have to be decided by the House.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The Government keep hiding behind the idea that this is only an enabling Bill and that we must wait for the great Bill, whenever it arrives. However,

    985
    this Bill is very specific on many matters, such as the number of days to polling day and the permitted sums. As the Bill is littered with such detail, it is not good enough to pursue the point that it is only enabling legislation.
    If the Minister thinks that it would be wrong for European institutions to become involved in a British referendum, and given the amount of detail that the Bill already contains, what does he have against incorporating in the Bill safeguards that would seem to deal with his own concerns about the involvement of institutions from abroad?
    Mr. Tipping: As I said—and as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) said—I just cannot see that happening. If there were a referendum on, say, the euro, I do not believe that the European Union would become involved. It would be counterproductive for it to do so. As I keep telling the Committee, such a matter is for the British people to decide, and they would not take kindly to other organisations becoming involved in it.
    The hon. Member for West Worcestershire says that we should make provision in the Bill to address that issue—there is an issue, and I do not dismiss it lightly—but the correct time to address it is when, if ever, we have to debate the design of a European single currency Bill, not now. I appreciate that hon. Members want to demonstrate their European credentials and Euro-scepticism and to express their dissatisfaction with Europe, but that future debate is the time for them to do that. This Bill is quite simply enabling legislation.
    The hon. Member for South Holland and Deeping—
    Mr. Hayes: The Deepings. My constituency is right next door to the Minister's.
    Mr. Tipping: I know where the constituency is located—I often campaign down that way—and it is not quite next door to my constituency. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman asked about the position on companies. There will be a cap—£500,000 on the sums that companies can contribute.
    As I said at the beginning of a this debate, partly in reply to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell), those of us who are in politics realise the excitement and passions that certain issues can arouse. We also certainly know that, in any referendum campaign, the two opposing sides will not be equally armed. The sides will look to different sources for money, and anyone who thinks that, in any issue, both sides could raise equal sums is living in cloud cuckoo land.
    The Bill tackles that situation by placing caps on the sums that individuals, companies and parties can spend. The Bill will not create a level playing field, but it will at least keep spending under control.
    Mr. Shepherd: The Irish Republic examined that problem, and I should imagine that the Home Office has spent much time examining that experience. The Irish Republic seeks equality of funding in national referendum campaigns, and its policy has had an impact on the outturn of a series of referendums on the European Union. In the most recent referendum, the policy achieved a much more equal balance in the vote turned out.
    986
    The point of my intervention is to support my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer). This is a framework Bill which is trying to create the ground rules to ensure fairness. It seems not unreasonable, therefore, to expect that some of the contentions that my hon. Friend mentioned should be dealt with in the framework. Specific matters could be identified and dealt with in subsequent legislation introduced by the Government—who, after all, are the initiating force in a referendum. They initiate a referendum only because they themselves have a view on the matter. The rules—in the framework Bill—should work to ensure fairness.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I thought that he was going to try to persuade me that different parties should have the same sums to spend on referendums.
    Mr. Shepherd: They should have an equal sum.
    Mr. Tipping: I have extracted the hon. Gentleman's view. However, I do not think that that objective is practically achievable. He asked whether European and international comparisons have been made: they have been made. He also pursued me on whether the Bill is template and framework legislation: it is.
    One important aspect of the Bill—we shall have an opportunity to discuss it in a later debate—is the provision, in clauses 4 and 5, for the Electoral Commission to review both the legislation's operation and how referendums are working.
    It has been acknowledged on both sides of the Committee that we are addressing new and difficult issues. Nevertheless—to reply to the point made by the hon. Member for West Worcestershire—the way to tackle those issues is to acknowledge that this is a template and framework Bill and to consider it in the light of experience. The Electoral Commission, for example, will have to respond after each election by producing a report. That issue is being addressed.
    The time for discussion of Europe and funding from Europe, a subject that is clearly taxing hon. Members, is when—at some point in the future, or never, if some people have their way—the House considers a referendum Bill on that matter.
    I hope that the Committee will agree to clause 98 standing part of the Bill.
    Mr. Grieve: I hope that the Minister will accept, from the long time that we have had discussing the Bill upstairs in Committee, that the Opposition have tried to take a non-partisan and constructive approach to the legislation. However, in his last remarks, the Minister sounded like Mr. Micawber, waiting for something to turn up in the future, rather than looking for something to solve his problem. As my hon. Friends the Members for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) and for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) said, this is supposed to be a framework Bill. Yet, everything that I have heard in the debate suggests that the framework is flawed.
    To clear up some anomalies—the Minister will correct me if I have it wrong—foreign organisations will be able to register under clause 98, and there is nothing to stop them from doing so. If they do so as individual organisations and companies, they will be able to spend

    987
    £500,000 in participating in a referendum campaign. That is notwithstanding the fact that Lord Neill, at paragraph 12.51 of his report, says that he considers that the arguments on the funding of political parties apply equally
    "to the funding of referendum campaigns, especially since these are likely to be concerned with major constitutional questions. We believe, therefore, that the same rules about 'permissible sources' that we recommend should apply to political parties and others in connection with foreign donations should also apply to individuals and organisations, including political parties, taking part in referendum campaigns."
    The Minister has had to accept that that cannot happen. The Bill goes further, because even foreign individuals and organisations who do not register as permitted organisations can spend £10,000 each. If an external organisation were divided into its constituent members, it could spend hundreds of thousands, if not millions of pounds in a referendum campaign. I am not concerned specifically about a referendum on the single currency. That could apply to any referendum.
    The Minister knows that we have approved of other parts of the Bill, but the whole of this part on referendums is badly flawed.
    Mr. Shepherd: The Minister said that the commission could review the arrangements, but that would be a post mortem. The critical events would already have happened. The commission would have no status in what could be an enormously important referendum.
    Mr. Grieve: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. We cannot support the clause and we intend to divide the House on it. It is the benchmark of a series of clauses that set up an edifice that is supposed to reflect Lord Neill's recommendations. Due to circumstances outside the Government's control—European law and the European convention on human rights—it is proving impossible to do that. This whole part of the Bill needs to be taken back to the drawing board. We should seriously consider dispensing with it until we have got it right.
    Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 334, Noes 146.

    Division No. 79]

    [6.12 pm

    AYES

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Betts, Clive

    Alexander, Douglas

    Blackman, Liz

    Allan, Richard

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Allen, Graham

    Blizzard, Bob

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Blunkett, Rt Hon David

    Ashton, Joe

    Borrow, David

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Brake, Tom

    Austin, John

    Brand, Dr Peter

    Banks, Tony

    Breed, Colin

    Barnes, Harry

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Barron, Kevin

    Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)

    Bayley, Hugh

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Beard, Nigel

    Browne, Desmond

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Buck, Ms Karen

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Burden, Richard

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Burgon, Colin

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Butler, Mrs Christine

    Benton, Joe

    Byers, Rt Hon Stephen

    Berry, Roger

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Best, Harold

    Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

    988

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Gerrard, Neil

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    Caplin, Ivor

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Casale, Roger

    Godsiff, Roger

    Cawsey, Ian

    Goggins, Paul

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    Chidgey, David

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    Clapham, Michael

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Grocott, Bruce

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Grogan, John

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Gunnell, John

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Hain, Peter

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    Clelland, David

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Coaker, Vemon

    Hancock, Mike

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Hanson, David

    Cohen, Harry

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Coleman, Iain

    Harvey, Nick

    Colman, Tony

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Connarty, Michael

    Healey, John

    Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Cooper, Yvette

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Corston, Jean

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Cotter, Brian

    Heppell, John

    Cousins, Jim

    Hesford, Stephen

    Cox, Tom

    Hinchliffe, David

    Cranston, Ross

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Crausby, David

    Hoey, Kate

    Hood, Jimmy

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Hope, Phil

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cummings, John

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Dalyell, Tam

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Hutton, John

    Darvill, Keith

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Davey, Edward (Kingston)

    Illsley, Eric

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Davidson, Ian

    Jamieson, David

    Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

    Doran, Frank

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Drew, David

    Kelly, Ms Ruth

    Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

    Kemp, Fraser

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Kidney, David

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Ennis, Jeff

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Etherington, Bill

    Kirkwood, Archy

    Feam, Ronnie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fisher, Mark

    Laxton, Bob

    Fitzsimons, Loma

    Lepper, David

    Flint, Caroline

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flynn, Paul

    Levitt, Tom

    Follett, Barbara

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Foster, Rt Hon Derek

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Don (Bath)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Linton, Martin

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Livsey, Richard

    Foulkes, George

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Fyfe, Maria

    Love, Andrew

    Galloway, George

    McAvoy, Thomas

    Gapes, Mike

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gardiner, Barry

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    Macdonald, Calum

    989

    McDonnell, John

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Roy, Frank

    McIsaac, Shona

    Ruddock, Joan

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    McNamara, Kevin

    Salter, Martin

    McNulty, Tony

    Sanders, Adrian

    MacShane, Denis

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    McWalter, Tony

    Savidge, Malcolm

    McWilliam, John

    Sawford, Phil

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Sedgemore, Brian

    Mallaber, Judy

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Sheerman, Barry

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Singh, Marsha

    Martlew, Eric

    Skinner, Dennis

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Meale, Alan

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Merron, Gillian

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Miller, Andrew

    Snape, Peter

    Mitchell, Austin

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Moffatt, Laura

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Moore, Michael

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Stevenson, George

    Morley, Elliot

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Mountford, Kali

    Stunell, Andrew

    Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie

    Sutcliffe, Gerry

    Mudie, George

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Mullin, Chris

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Timms, Stephen

    Norris, Dan

    Tipping, Paddy

    Oaten, Mark

    Todd, Mark

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Trickett, Jon

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Truswell, Paul

    O'Neill, Martin

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Öpik, Lembit

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Pendry, Tom

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Perham, Ms Linda

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Tyler, Paul

    Pike, Peter L

    Tynan, Bill

    Plaskitt, James

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Pollard, Kerry

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Pond, Chris

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Pound, Stephen

    Wareing, Robert N

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Webb, Steve

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Welsh, Andrew

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    White, Brian

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Purchase, Ken

    Quinn, Lawrie

    Willis, Phil

    Rammell, Bill

    Winnick, David

    Rapson, Syd

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Raynsford, Nick

    Wise, Audrey

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Rendel, David

    Wyatt, Derek

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Rogers, Allan

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Rooney, Terry

    Mr. Greg Pope.

    990

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Amess, David

    Jenkin, Bernard

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

    Key, Robert

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

    Baldry, Tony

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Beggs, Roy

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Lansley, Andrew

    Bercow, John

    Leigh, Edward

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Letwin, Oliver

    Blunt, Crispin

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Boswell, Tim

    Lidington, David

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Brady, Graham

    Loughton, Tim

    Brazier Julian

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Burns, Simon

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Butterfill, John

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Cash, William

    Madel, Sir David

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    Malins, Humfrey

    Maude, Rt Hon Francis

    Chope, Christopher

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Clappison, James

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

    Norman, Archie

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Ottaway, Richard

    Collins, Tim

    Page, Richard

    Colvin, Michael

    Paice, James

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    Paterson, Owen

    Cran, James

    Pickles, Eric

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Randall, John

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Day, Stephen

    Robertson, Laurence

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Duncan, Alan

    Ruffley, David

    Duncan, Smith, Iain

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Evans, Nigel

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Faber, David

    Shepherd, Richard

    Fabricant, Michael

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Fallon, Michael

    Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

    Flight, Howard

    Soames, Nicholas

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Fraser, Christopher

    Spring, Richard

    Gale, Roger

    Steen, Anthony

    Garnier, Edward

    Streeter, Gary

    Gibb, Nick

    Swayne, Desmond

    Gill, Christopher

    Syms, Robert

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Gray, James

    Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strangford)

    Green, Damian

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Greenway, John

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Grieve, Dominic

    Townend, John

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Tredinnick, David

    Hammond, Philip

    Trend, Michael

    Hawkins, Nick

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Hayes, John

    Viggers, Peter

    Heald, Oliver

    Walter, Robert

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Wardle, Charles

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Waterson, Nigel

    Horam, John

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Whittingdale, John

    Hunter, Andrew

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Wilkinson, John

    991

    Willetts, David

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Wilshire, David

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Winerton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Yeo, Tim

    Mr. Peter Luff.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 98 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 99

    DECLARATIONS AND NOTIFICATIONS FOR PURPOSES OF SECTION 98
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Walter: I do not wish to prolong the debate on organisations that are designated as permitted participants in a referendum campaign. Clause 99 deals with declarations and notifications for the purposes of clause 98. I wish to alert the Committee to what I see as more evidence of the problems in the Bill with regard to those who might well decide that they are or want to be permitted participants, but are not normally regarded as citizens of the United Kingdom or are not normally resident here.
    Clause 99(4)(a) states:
    "A notification under this section must—
    (a) if given by an individual, state—
    (i) his full name, and
    (ii) his home address in the United Kingdom".
    I imagine that, for the purposes of his home address in the United Kingdom, a hotel or a friend's address would be perfectly acceptable so long as he signed the notification.
    In respect of a company, the name and the address of its registered office is required. To some extent, that brings companies within the scope of the Bill. None the less, there are no specific provisions, despite those in respect of permitted donors to political parties, that relate to a company
    "registered under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and … incorporated within the European Union, which carries on business in the United Kingdom."
    There are no such provisions in clause 99 in respect of the declarations and notifications that have to be made.
    If a notification is
    "given by an unincorporated association",
    it must state

    "(i) the name of the association,

    (ii) the address of an office of the association in the United Kingdom".

    So one might well receive a notification from the good burghers of Calais who wished to participate in a referendum campaign and had a branch office in Dover. That would be sufficient for them to be permitted participants. If the limits in the Bill applied to them, as foreigners, they would be entitled to spend £500,000.
    In the previous couple of debates on amendments to clause 98 and clause stand part, we have emphasised the fact that the Bill allows for an enormous leak which will permit foreign individuals, companies, unincorporated associations and other bodies to participate in our
    992
    democratic procedures without necessarily being United Kingdom nationals. It is a worrying provision and it is highlighted yet again in clause 99.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 99 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clauses 100 and 101 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 102

    APPLICATIONS FOR DESIGNATION UNDER SECTION 101
    Mr. Stunell: I beg to move amendment No. 13, in page 64, line 28, at end insert—
    '(5A) In making any designation of a permitted participant under section 101(2) or (4) the Commission shall have regard to

    (i) the separate levels of support for each of the permitted participants which have given notice under section 99(1)(b) or section 99(3)(b) that they propose to campaign for the same outcome, and

    (ii) evidence submitted to it by any permitted participants relating to their principal reasons for campaigning for that outcome.

    (5B) Where the Commission is satisfied that more than one permitted participant has demonstrated

    (a) substantial support, and

    (b) a distinct "principal reason" for campaigning for the same outcome, and

    (c) that it would be unreasonable to refuse designation under section 101(1),

    it may designate 2 or more permitted participants for assistance under section 103.
    (5C) Where the Commission makes any designation under subsection (5C) above, they shall make such an apportionment of eligibility for assistance between the designated permitted participants as they think fit.'.
    The Chairman of Ways and Means (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 12, in clause 103, page 64, line 40, at end insert—
    '(2A) Where more than one designation has been made under section 102(5B), that amount shall be apportioned in accordance with section 102(5C).'.
    6.30 pm
    Mr. Stunell: I refer hon. Members to clause 101(1), which states:
    "The Commission may … designate permitted participants as organisations to whom assistance is available".
    We have a small language problem here in that there are designated organisations and permitted organisations. I do not claim that the Bill is ambiguous, but it is easy to become ambiguous when one is speaking about them.
    Clause 101 establishes that the designated participants that meet certain criteria may receive financial assistance, and the decision on that will be made by the Electoral Commission. Clause 102, to which amendment No. 13 relates, deals with how permitted participants will be designated. Clause 102(5) provides for a situation in which designated participants make competing applications to become the organisation that will receive assistance. The special use of language in the Bill means that it is possible to lose sight of the fine distinctions between the two types of body, but a person, political party or organisation that fulfils certain criteria can

    993
    become a designated participant, which allows them to take part in the process. Beyond that, one or more of those designated participants can then apply to become an organisation that will receive assistance.
    The amendment would extend the options available to the Electoral Commission when deciding between competing designated participants who wished to become the organisation eligible to receive assistance. The Bill, as drafted, provides the commission with two options—it can establish which of the permitted participants has the greatest popular support, or, if it is not satisfied that any of the applicants adequately represents those campaigning for a particular outcome, it can make no award. In other words, the commission has to make an all or nothing choice if there are competing demands for support.
    The amendment would give the Electoral Commission more flexibility so that it could consider a third option. For example, in the feasible prospect of a referendum on the United Kingdom's joining the euro, it is likely that several bodies that are opposed to joining will compete to become the designated organisation. At one end of the spectrum of those opposed to joining will be the Socialist Workers party. Its reasons for opposing it might be complex and various, but they boil down to the argument that the euro is a capitalist plot that should be resisted at all costs. At the other end of the spectrum will be the so-called Democracy movement, which is equally ferociously opposed to the euro, essentially because it is a communist plot. Perhaps somewhere in the middle will be a large body of Conservatives, some of whom are what I call quitters and some of whom are stayers but all of whom are committed at the moment to opposing joining the euro.
    As the Bill is drafted, all three of those umbrella bodies would be able properly to participate in the campaign, but it would be for the Electoral Commission to decide which body would receive financial support for making its case in the campaign. If people are confident that their factional view is likely to be seen as the majority view among those seeking a particular outcome, they would not have to worry because the commission would designate them and they would receive the money. However, there is a problem if—perhaps in some future referendum—the forces that want one particular outcome are all strongly motivated and strongly supported, and it is not so evident which should receive the financial support of the commission.
    At the limit, the commission could toss a coin and say that the money would go to, for example, the SWP; or the commission could be unable to make up its mind, because there was too much controversy or uncertainty, and allocate no money to one side of the argument. While it may not be too helpful to pursue the specific case of the euro referendum to its logical conclusion, because people will argue that it is unlikely that the SWP would receive the money, I use it as an illustration of the fact that people can have fundamentally different reasons for supporting a particular outcome in a referendum. In some cases, it may be appropriate and proper for them to form an umbrella body that can qualify for support, but on other occasions that will not be possible.
    Let us suppose that the line of thought represented by Lord Shore, the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner)
    994
    and the SWP was the ascendant view in popular opinion as we approached a referendum on the euro. I put it to Conservative Members that they would not be happy if all the money to support the no campaign went to that faction and none went to the Conservative faction.
    Another likely future referendum is on stage 2 of the reform of the House of Lords. It is possible that some might want to vote against the reform package, their opposition being based on the fact that they wanted a wholly elected House of Lords and that what was being offered was a miserable and unworthy compromise. Some others might also be strongly opposed to the reforms because they wished to return to the hereditary principle. As the Bill stands, those two factions would either knock each other out, with the Electoral Commission making no grant, or one of them—if it could establish some ascendancy in its views—would be supported and the other would not.
    We have said several times in previous debates that the Bill is fundamental. It is the first reworking, in detailed and substantial form, of legislation that goes back 117 years, and we do not know how frequently it will be updated in the future. We heard earlier that it is a framework Bill on which other legislation dealing with referendums will be based. Therefore, the issue that I have drawn to the Committee's attention requires careful consideration. It may be that the examples I have mentioned—of the referendums on the euro and the House of Lords—are not appropriate, but it seems likely that over the next few generations the situation I have outlined will arise. If so, the absence of a third option in the Bill will be a drawback that will have considerable consequences.
    Amendment No. 13 would require that before the commission could adopt any sort of third-way approach, it would have to be satisfied that each alternative choice had substantial support. The Bill uses the phrase "to the greatest extent" to describe the necessary level of support, but that might be only 36 or 37 per cent. Alternative factions, with other views, might achieve support levels of 30, 32 or 33 per cent.
    The amendment retains the need for support to be substantial: it would not mean that some crackpot from Hazel Grove could turn and claim a share of the money just because he said that he had a distinctly different way of looking at things. It also requires that there be a "distinct 'principal reason''' for seeking the same outcome. If those two conditions were met, the amendment would give the Electoral Commission the authority to split the amount of financial support given to those supporting a particular outcome—but only if it would be unreasonable not to do so.
    The amendment would also provide that the split of the financial support available should be decided by the Electoral Commission. Amendment No. 12, to clause 103, is the consequential amendment that would implement that requirement.
    Amendment No. 13 would prevent a difficulty that is certainly possible in theory, and which I submit is quite feasible in real life—namely, that it is possible for there to be more than one completely distinct and separate reason for wanting a particular outcome. I do not know how many such reasons for wanting a particular outcome it might be possible to have, but I suggest that three is a practical limit. The amendment would prevent money

    995
    going to an organisation that enjoyed only 35 per cent. support, when a larger number of people—the collective total of those who support the same outcome—would not get anything. It would also prevent the outcome whereby no money would be given to anyone simply because the Electoral Commission had lost patience with them all.
    The amendment would remove unfairness and prevent the undesirable and undemocratic outcome that such unfairness might produce. It would provide a third-way alternative for the Electoral Commission when it was deciding how to allocate resources in a referendum campaign. It is designed to ensure that those resources are not fragmented and that coherent and separate arguments opposing or supporting a particular outcome are taken into account.
    The amendment would safeguard democracy. I hope that the Minister will bear in mind the fact that the Bill puts in place a framework that will last for a long time. Many different circumstances will arise, and the circumstances in which there will be distinct and separate principal reasons should be a factor that the Electoral Commission takes into account when allocating resources.
    Mr. Walter: I am rather concerned about amendment No. 13, which I call the chaos amendment. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) described the third way and where it leads. I suspect that I am beginning to find out where it leads. This delightful amendment sums up my understanding of the Liberal Democrats, especially when they campaign in elections. For them, the desired outcome is clear—that Liberal Democrats should get elected. However, they believe it reasonable to use different—even conflicting—arguments to get to the same point.
    That propensity reminds me of a story arising from some local council elections in Dorset. In one village, a lady who had recently moved in complained that there were no street lights. The candidate told her that his party was going to make sure that street lights were installed. However, when the lady in the next house told him that she had heard that his party was going to put in street lights, he told her that she was safe and that his party had no intention of going against the village's tradition of not having them.
    6.45 pm
    Mr. Miller: The same thing happened in my constituency.
    Mr. Walter: I am pleased that it does not happen only in Dorset.
    The amendment is worrying because, instead of allowing for the designation of one umbrella organisation on each side of the argument, it would allow several such umbrellas to exist. People would then run around looking for cover under the umbrella that most suited them. Under clause 103 and schedule 3, designated organisations will get £600,000. The precedent for that was set in the 1975 referendum, and the amount has been uprated to allow for inflation.
    However, designated organisations are also allowed to send an address to every household or elector, so if there were more than one designated organisation, which organisation would send the address? Would those messages be sent to only a third of the available households or electors, or to every other one?
    996
    Under the amendment, would the designated organisations get the use of public rooms free of charge? If there were several such umbrella organisations on each side of the argument, that would come to an awful lot of rooms.
    How would the broadcasting authorities cope with referendum campaign broadcasts? For instance, umbrella organisations that support a single currency from capitalist and socialist points of view, respectively, might both seek time for referendum broadcasts. However, one organisation may fear that the broadcast made by the other might kill off the case for the single currency for all time.
    The Bill's provision that only one umbrella organisation should receive the grant from Government is the correct approach. The Electoral Commission may wish to knock heads together to determine which body should receive the money, or it may leave it for the relevant groups to work out for themselves. However, such an approach would not preclude other points of view being expressed, as the Bill allows political parties and other bodies to participate in the referendum process. The Bill means that the commission will have to deal with only one body on each side of the argument, and we are content with that.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) struggled with the language when he spoke to his amendment. The matter is difficult, but he made it clear that his intention was to find a third way when it comes to funding. The amendment departs from the Bill's provision that the Electoral Commission will designate money to one umbrella organisation on each side of the referendum campaign, and would instead provide that there might be more than one such organisation on each side. The Government would strongly oppose taking that line. The essence of the Neill committee's proposal is that there should be one organisation on each side of the campaign. The committee's work in Wales persuaded it that a grant of £600,000 and facilities should be available to enable a minimum campaign to be run.
    As the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) said, the real advantage of an umbrella organisation is the mailshot—I had better be careful what I say about mailshots in view of last night's debate on election expenses for the mayor of London and the assembly—the free use of rooms and the right to broadcast. It is difficult to see how those resources could be shared among competing claims. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove said that the Electoral Commission would face a difficult task in identifying the umbrella organisation when there were competing demands.
    The hon. Gentleman's amendment states:
    "Where the Commission makes any designation under subsection (5C) above, they shall make such an apportionment of eligibility for assistance between the designated permitted participants as they think fit."
    It is unclear how the Electoral Commission could be unable to identify an umbrella organisation and then do a more sophisticated analysis, in what the hon. Member for North Dorset called a chaotic situation, to identify the share-out within the umbrella group.
    The Government have always recognised that it will not always be possible for everybody to work together under an umbrella group, and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove gave us some examples. However, the Bill does

    997
    not prevent that from happening. It will be possible to have an umbrella organisation and groups working alongside it, which are not part of it, and have a slightly different view. That is the plurality of the situation.
    It must be right to have only one umbrella group on either side. It is also right that others who want to participate will still be able to do so. There are rules in the Bill governing that. However, they will not have a right, unless they are part of the umbrella campaign, to a share of the public resources—the £600,000, the right to broadcast and the free mailshot. The hon. Member for North Dorset said that the financial pot will lead people to bang their heads together. I am not sure whether the Electoral Commission will be banging heads together. The prospect of substantial sums of money will, after a lot of discussion and some heartache, force bodies to work together as part of an umbrella organisation.
    To have an umbrella organisation on each side of the argument must be the way forward. It is what the Neill committee recommended, and it is the approach that the Government would like to adopt to avoid a chaotic situation. With that, I ask the hon. Member for Hazel Grove to reflect on his amendments.
    Mr. Stunell: I shall not talk about the intricacies of street lights in Dorset. However, I once made an issue out of two Conservative leaflets in my constituency—one was strongly in favour of a road, and one was strongly against it. They seemed to be distributed in adjacent areas, depending on what it was thought people in each area would like to hear. No one has a monopoly on distributing leaflets or talking to electors with what is sometimes called a forked tongue.
    I apologise to the House and the Hansard reporters if I got my "permitted participants" and "designated organisations" mixed up at various points in my speech. I hope that my intention was clear; in any event, the Minister has clarified what I was trying to say, and I thank him for that.
    I freely concede that there are some difficulties. My amendment may not be comprehensive enough in its scope and precise enough in its detail to achieve its objective. I understand the point that is being made. I am less happy, however, with the view that the scenario that I have described is unlikely or that if it does occur, it is not greatly to be feared. We are setting in place framework designation that is designed to last for a long time. The intention of my amendment is to provide a seldom-used but available alternative in a particular set of circumstances. However, I understand the Minister's reluctance to proceed, and recognise that there is no support for the proposal elsewhere in the House. Having aired my case, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 49, in page 64, line 32, leave out "shorter or".
    This is a small amendment that can be considered without having to consider some of the wider issues that were before us earlier. Nevertheless, it cannot be completely divorced from those issues, because it
    998
    concerns the power that clause 102 gives the Secretary of State to vary the periods that are provided for in that clause. It may be worth setting out briefly what this part of the Bill aims to do.
    Certain organisations may become designated organisations and receive funding, so there will be competition among various organisations to become so designated. All permitted participants will be eligible for designation, and will doubtless be rooting to be the designated group and receive the funding. Clause 102 provides:
    "A permitted participant seeking to be designated under section 101 must make an application for the purpose to the Commission."
    He must provide statements saying that he adequately represents those campaigning for the outcome of the referendum. He must make his application within 28 days, beginning with the first day of the referendum period. Thereafter, the commission will have to get to work and, with considerable rapidity—given that dozens of organisations may be vying for designation—decide within 14 days which of the applications should be determined favourably or otherwise.
    If there is one application in relation to a particular outcome of the referendum, the commission will designate that applicant unless it is not satisfied that the applicant adequately represents those campaigning for that outcome. If there is more than one application in relation to a particular outcome, which I venture to suggest may well be the case, the commission has to make almost a judgment of Solomon between the various organisations. It must pick the one which appears to represent, to the greatest extent, those campaigning for that outcome, unless it is not satisfied that any of the applicants adequately represents those campaigning for the outcome.
    It is a complex and bureaucratic process, which will undoubtedly attract much public comment. One can envisage circumstances in which members of organisations may become upset and angry if they do not achieve designation. That is the task given to the commission.
    7 pm
    The clause sets out an extremely tight timetable, which is linked to the rest of the timetable for referendum periods. As the Home Office Minister pointed out earlier, in reality there may be a long preliminary period for most referendums, during which all the parties would vie for position. Everyone would know that the referendum was due to be held, so no one would be taken by surprise. However, the measure is framework legislation and it must take account of contingencies, some of which might include circumstances when a referendum is sprung on an unsuspecting electorate by a Government. One example—dare I offer it to the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office?—might be that of a Government who had been promising a referendum for a long time, who lulled the electorate into a false sense of security because the referendum never seemed to happen, and then suddenly announced that it would take place immediately.
    If that were to happen, it would create an immense logjam. Indeed, in those circumstances the 28-day period for designation might be too short. Similarly, the poor old commission might be hard put to find the time to choose between competing organisations. It strikes me—and the official Opposition—as astonishing that in subsection (6)

    999
    we give the Secretary of State the power to make by order a variation in the 28 and 14-day periods to make the period not only longer, but, if he sees fit, shorter.
    That appears completely crazy. I can understand the need for a longer period, but I cannot fathom how a shorter period could be just. The mere fact that the measure includes that provision gives me some cause for anxiety. Technically, it would allow the Secretary of State to move, by order, that the period for the submission of designation could be limited, for example, to six or seven days—let alone the absurdity that it might be reduced to 24 hours. One consequence of that would be that individual organisations seeking to be the designated party in a referendum campaign would be hamstrung because they would have insufficient time to mount their case.
    I should be grateful if the Minister would explain the justification for providing a shorter as well as a longer period, although I can well understand why a longer period might be provided.
    Mr. Tipping indicated assent.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister nods.
    However, if we consider the matter realistically, a period of 28 days to put in a designation request and 14 days for its consideration is the bare minimum. In that case, the Committee can safely tell the Government to adopt the amendment and delete the possibility of a shorter period because, in practice, that shorter period could never happen. At least, it could never happen if a Government were acting properly.
    Although I have confidence even in the Government of whom the Minister is a representative, one has to look ahead, in framework legislation, to possible occasions when that might not be so. In those circumstances, unless the Minister can offer me some clear examples of why he thinks that the existing provision is useful, I urge him to reconsider the matter. If he thinks that my remarks make some sense, will he adopt the amendment or, at least, assure me that he will consider it?
    Mr. Tipping: I was struck by the hon. Gentleman's comment that provisions were needed so that contingencies could be taken into account. He rightly pointed out that, in this case, the contingency is the power of the Secretary of State to provide for a longer or shorter period than the 28 or 14 days. I shall not go over the provisions in the measure because he explained them so well.
    As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the argument for a longer period is that there will be much pressure on the commission. According to the provisions set out in the measure, the quickest time in which a referendum could take place is 10 weeks. Usually, there would be far more notice than that. There may be a case for some flexibility and for a longer period because of the difficulties that the commission might face. That is why provision for a longer period has been included.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister clarify whether it is possible that the use of the 28-day period in clause 102 would cause the designated 28-day period in clause 97 to run out? Is it possible that the umbrella group might never be formed during the referendum period?
    Mr. Tipping: That is certainly not the intention of the measure. It provides money and resources to umbrella
    1000
    groups—for the first time, £600,000 will be available, as well as free mailshots and so on. The intention clearly is not to stop the formation of umbrella organisations.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I accept that that is not the intention, but is it a possible outcome that the 28-day period mentioned in clause 97 would be the same 28-day period mentioned in clause 102? If so, the commission would run out of time for designation.
    Mr. Tipping: I think that the hon. Gentleman is taking the Committee back to a point that I made a few moments ago—that the minimum time for a referendum could be 10 weeks. The 10 weeks comprise two 28-day periods and a 14-day period. There is a 28-day period for the formation of the umbrella group; 14 days for the commission to deal with designation; and a campaign period, beyond that, of not less than 28 days. I think that covers the hon. Gentleman's point.
    The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) asked why there was provision for a shorter period and why flexibility was needed. He asked for clear examples. The most obvious example is in Northern Ireland, where it is sometimes necessary quickly to seek the consent of the people on a particular settlement. In the referendum on the Good Friday agreement, only 32 days elapsed between the laying of the Northern Ireland Negotiations (Referendum) Order 1998 and the holding of the referendum. That is the reason for the inclusion of a reference to a shorter period.
    The Government believe that, occasionally, there might be situations where it is necessary to act quickly, but that will not be the norm. Ministers and officials feel that we should reserve that flexibility; in extreme circumstances, there should be the chance to move to a shorter period. The object of the Bill is to conform to the time periods that it establishes—the 28 days and the 14 days, which, as the hon. Gentleman points out, will be most demanding. However, there could be occasions—especially in Northern Ireland—when some flexibility might be used.
    Given that reassurance, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reconsider the amendment.
    Mr. Grieve: I am grateful to the Minister for his candour, although I do not find the Northern Ireland example entirely reassuring. Indeed, it is a good example, because one might say that what was being sought was to take a snapshot of public opinion in the Province and to do it so quickly that people did not have time to change their minds on the issue. Dare I say it to the Minister, but I thought that the whole idea behind the Bill was to create a fair framework that would prevent sudden advantage being taken of public moods? I make that point even though, if I had been living in Northern Ireland, I might have voted yes in the referendum there.
    I am not wholly persuaded by the Minister's argument. He is honestly telling us that there may be circumstances in which the Government think that it is to their advantage to ask a question and get a quick answer. However, those who disagree with the answer that a Government are seeking look to the rules and regulations, as set out by Lord Neill, to do the opposite. They look to them to offer a sufficient time frame in which debate and reasoned argument can take place, so that everyone can go to the polling station on the day of the referendum having had a real opportunity to consider the issues.

    1001
    We cannot get away from the fact that, historically, referendums have often been used by tyrannical regimes to seek endorsement for matters to their advantage from waves of public opinion. Sometimes, they come unstuck. For example, in the past 48 hours, a Government, who seem to have pretty dubious democratic credentials have received a slap in the face from the electorate when they thought that they had it all stitched up.
    We are trying to do something different. I am not persuaded by the Minister's argument, but I shall not press the amendment to a vote. However, I hope that he will reconsider the issue, because the limits set out in the clause are the absolute minimum on which a fair campaign could possibly be based. If that is so, the only possible ground for having a shorter period would be to introduce a measure of unfairness. In those circumstances, the Committee should have nothing to do with the provision. However, subject to those comments—and I hope that the Minister will bear them in mind—I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I wish to make two brief points. First, I believe that it is unhealthy for the state to fund political campaigns. Down that path are all sorts of threats to democracy. However, I shall put that point to one side. Secondly, if the state is going to make such payments, it is right that there should be an independent commission as outlined in the clause. It should be responsible for allocating state payments. If it is right for the commission to have designation and authoritative powers under the clause, why is it not given similar powers in other clauses? I have returned to that point time and again, because it is illogical. If the commission is correctly given such authoritative powers by this clause, could not the Government reconsider, as I sense they might, the whole philosophy, so that they strengthen the authority and independence of the commission?
    I hope that the clause will act as a precedent for the Government and that they will continue the process of giving as much independence to the commission—as opposed to the Secretary of State—as is possible.
    Mr. Tipping: I will not comment on the hon. Gentleman's view that we should not go down the road of state funding, except to point out that he, his party and all of us receive such facilities during a general election campaign. The proposal in the clause is not as new as he suggests.
    7.15 pm
    I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman that the commission must be seen as independent and authoritative, and it must have the support of all the political parties and players. I have never said that the Bill is in the best shape possible; we have already improved it in our discussions and there will be further opportunities to do that. I also draw his attention to clauses 4 and 5, which will give the commission the task of preparing reports after each election and reviewing its work
    1002
    regularly so that it can take stock of what it has done. Referendums are a new area for legislation, and the commission will want to revisit the issues, revise them and bring forward further proposals.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The Minister's point about independence was correct, and I am grateful to him for saying that he will consider ways of improving the Bill.
    This clause is about the commission's functions and powers. I hope that the precedent established by the powers for designation in the clause will be borne in mind by the Minister when he considers the commission's powers and functions in other clauses.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 102 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 103

    ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO DESIGNATED ORGANISATIONS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Sir George Young: I wish to raise a few points, in particular about subsection (2) which mentions £600,000 as the sum available. I have traced the genealogy of the sum through the Neill report and the White Paper and I am not arguing for a higher figure—once a Treasury Minister, always a Treasury Minister. However, I was slightly surprised to see that the figure of £600,000 is set in stone. I have looked through the clause and I cannot see any provision for varying it. On several occasions, we have heard that the Bill is a template and that it is designed to last for a long time, so I assume that we shall need primary legislation to change the figure of £600,000. I appreciate that sums are mentioned elsewhere in the Bill, but they tend to be larger sums—£20 million and others. The figure in this clause is relatively small, so I am puzzled why there is no power to vary it.
    Mr. Tipping: I draw the right hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 141.
    Sir George Young: It is kind of the Minister to suggest that there may be that provision for variation. I take it that that applies to this clause.
    Mr. Tippingindicated assent.
    Sir George Young: That is helpful. However, I seek further explanation. Other clauses in the Bill, such as clause 11 on grants, give the commission pretty wide discretion. It can make grants to other persons or bodies to enable them to carry out certain programmes. Under clause 11, it seems to have enormous flexibility to spend quite large sums of money on grants that are not wholly its prime purpose. However, this clause gives it £600,000 to help designated organisations, and clause 141, which the Minister mentioned, gives powers to the Secretary of State to vary the figure. In effect, that is my point.
    Other parts of the Bill, such as schedule 13, allow for flexibility, although I concede that, in the case of the schedule, it is flexibility on the part of the Secretary of State. When the commission produces its post mortem on a referendum, will it have the freedom to state its view of the figure of £600,000? That is not clear from this clause.

    1003
    However, if, for the sake of argument, it felt that the figure in subsection (2) was wrong, will it be able to make recommendations to the Secretary of State suggesting that the figure was either too high or too low and will he take its views on board and consider varying it?
    It would be helpful if the Minister could explain why the figure of £600,000 is so tightly constrained by the Secretary of State, when one of the commission's prime functions is to make sure that a side of the argument that is in danger of being under-represented gets sufficient money. There are no such constraints on the commission in making the grants in clause 11, yet that function is arguably less important. In fact, we argued that it was so unimportant that the provision should be deleted. There seems to be an imbalance between clauses 11 and 103. Can the Minister shed any light on that?
    Mr. Tipping: I shall try to shed light on the matter. I take the right hon. Gentleman back to clause 141. I admit that I sprung that on him earlier, but if he reads it he will realise that although the Secretary of State makes the order, subsection (2)(b) adds,
    "where the order gives effect to a recommendation of the Commission."
    The Secretary of State cannot therefore make an order without a recommendation from the commission.
    I turn the right hon. Gentleman's attention to clause 4, which spells out the reports that the commission must produce regularly after elections, and clause 5, which contains a much more permissive power to keep matters under review and submit reports to the Secretary of State from time to time.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked why clause 11 gives the commission a great deal of flexibility. Speaking from memory, I believe that the sum concerned is £3 million, but a lot of that is existing money within the Home Office and local government, which is used, perhaps not very successfully, to remind and exhort people to vote. Although I should not stray from the subject at hand, I accept that there is a great deal of good work for the commission to do on electoral education under clause 11.
    Another part of the Bill dealing with policy development grants represents a step forward. It gives the commission the power to make £2 million of grants to political parties so that they can develop their policies, but the commission has to bring forward a scheme after consultation.
    There is, therefore, a great deal of flexibility throughout the Bill for promoting awareness and policy development. As I pointed out to the right hon. Gentleman, there is also flexibility in the power to vary the sum of £600,000. I look forward to the commission's reports because they will be a trigger that will help all our thinking.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 103 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 11

    ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO DESIGNATED ORGANISATIONS
    Question proposed, That this schedule be the Eleventh schedule to the Bill.
    Sir George Young: Schedule 11 deals with the right to send a referendum address post free, which is of topical interest.
    1004
    Paragraph 280 on page 64 of the explanatory notes, which the Department kindly circulated with the Bill, says:
    "A mailing by the two sides in a United Kingdom-wide referendum to every elector would cost some £13.2 million. One to every household would cost some £7.2 million."
    I am entirely in favour of free mailshots during a referendum campaign.
    In the previous debate, the Minister pulled something out of a hat, and I wonder whether he can do the same on this occasion. I was following last night's debate, and at 11.16 pm, the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), said:
    "The GLA is a small streamlined authority with a budget of £35 million, and expenditure of £15 million to £20 million on mailshots would be quite disproportionate."—[Official Report, 15 February 2000; Vol. 344, c. 893.]
    I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary is asking himself the same question as I am asking myself, which is why the Greater London Authority would spend £15 million to £20 million if it paid for mailshots, but a mailshot to every elector by the two sides in a UK-wide referendum would cost £13.2 million. I appreciate that there can be more than two candidates in a mayoral election, although presumably if there were more than two, the mailshots could be delivered at the same time. Last night, however, the Government used a rather high figure when they were trying to discourage the House from pushing for a free mailshot, and that figure was much higher than that on page 64 of the explanatory notes. Can the Minister shed any light on the apparent incompatibility of the two figures?
    Mr. Tipping: Having pulled something out of the hat earlier, I am afraid that it is empty on this occasion. All I can do is consider the figures and the extracts that the right hon. Gentleman has just quoted, and write to him. I would add that the GLA provisions are seen as local government provisions, whereas we are discussing national campaigns in this Bill. Referendum mailshots would typically be for two sides, but I understand that there may be up to 20 candidates for the mayor of London, which will clearly increase costs. I will write to the right hon. Gentleman, without the sense of magic and flourish that goes with pulling something out of a hat.
    Sir Michael Spicer: Schedule 11 also deals with the commission's role in ensuring fairness in broadcasting. Do the Government envisage the commission having not only the powers to set policies on fairness but the resources to monitor and ensure that those policies are implemented? We all know that broadcasters can set out with good intentions, but they do not always fulfil them. The BBC is ruled by statute but does not always comply with it in practice. Will the commission be responsible for ensuring that its policies on fairness are implemented day to day?
    Mr. Tipping: The Committee has had an opportunity to discuss this matter. I draw hon. Members' attention to clause 9, which says that broadcasters shall have regard to the commission's views. The commission is in a position to express views about broadcasting. I have already given the Committee an undertaking to consider

    1005
    introducing a new form of words. It is clearly important that the commission should be involved, but that does not remove responsibility from broadcasters.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule 11 agreed to.
    Clause 104 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Schedule 12

    REFERENDUM EXPENSES: QUALIFYING EXPENSES
    Question proposed, That this schedule be the Twelfth schedule to the Bill.
    Mr. Walter: The schedule, which deals with qualifying expenses in a referendum, seems reasonable, but as I read through it I become a little confused. We are given a list of expenses, including those incurred in referendum campaign broadcasts, advertising of any nature, and
    "unsolicited material addressed to electors (whether addressed to them by name or intended for delivery to households within any particular area or areas)."
    The list of exclusions in paragraph 2, however, says:
    "Nothing in paragraph 1 shall be taken as extending to…
    (b) any expenses in respects of unsolicited material sent to supporters of the referendum campaign".
    7.30 pm
    I am not sure of the distinction between the two types of unsolicited material. Those fighting a referendum campaign usually start from the presumption that everybody is a supporter of their cause. So perhaps they do not have to count against their expenditure limits the expense of sending material to those whom they perceive to be their supporters.
    Also among the exclusions are
    "any expenses in respect of newsletters or similar publications issued by or on behalf of the campaign organiser with a view to giving electors in a particular electoral area information about the opinions or activities of, or other personal information relating to, their elected representatives or existing or prospective candidates".
    At first I thought that the sub-paragraph had strayed from another part of the Bill. In fact, it means that as long as newsletters tell one something about the views of one's local elected representative, expense incurred in sending them does not count as the campaign expenditure of an organisation campaigning in a referendum. One can therefore imagine an awful lot of newsletters going out in a referendum. Will the Minister give me some guidance, particularly on the exclusions?
    Another exclusion is:
    "any expenses incurred in respect of the remuneration or allowances payable to any member of the permanent staff of the campaign organiser".
    That means that such staff are no longer an expense in the referendum. I can understand the exclusions covering
    "any reasonable expenses incurred in respect of an individual by way of travelling expenses…or in providing for his accommodation or other personal needs",
    but fail to see why expenditure on publications and newsletters, on unsolicited material and in respect of remuneration of staff should be excluded.
    1006
    Paragraph 2 is another example of dilution of what we thought were ground rules on campaign expenditure. Indeed, two sub-paragraphs—on unsolicited material addressed to electors and on unsolicited material sent to supporters—appear to be contradictory. Electors and supporters can be one and the same thing.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman will recognise that schedule 12 almost exactly mirrors schedule 7, which we have had the opportunity to discuss. I am grateful to him for drawing our attention to paragraph 2 and, incidentally, to similar provisions in schedule 7. During our debate upstairs, I said on a number of occasions that I would like to reflect on the matter. The hon. Gentleman has made important points. There may have been some drafting errors. I am grateful for his points; I will write to him and, if necessary, correct matters later.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Schedule 12 agreed to.

  Clause 105

    NOTIONAL REFERENDUM EXPENSES
    Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 50, in page 66, line 2, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".
    The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this, it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 51, in clause 107, page 67, line 10, leave out "£100" and insert "£200".
    Mr. Grieve: These amendments follow a pattern reflected elsewhere concerning de minimis amounts. In the light of some earlier comments, considerations in the context of referendum expenditure may be slightly different from those that apply to elections.
    Under clause 105, any individual or body that is provided with certain services must declare them, and they are treated as incurred if they exceed £100. Similarly, clause 107 states:
    "No payment (of whatever nature) may be made in respect of any referendum expenses incurred or to be incurred by or on behalf of a permitted participant unless it is…less than £100."
    If payment is over £100, it must be properly recorded and submitted to the commission.
    There seems to be a difference between the two clauses. Clause 105 refers to any "individual or body", whereas clause 107 refers to "a permitted participant". Will the Minister clarify whether it is intended that clause 105 should cover a wider group of people? One way of interpreting matters is that, unlike clause 105, clause 107 does not apply to others who might wish to get involved in a campaign—individuals whom I described earlier as the loose cannon of the procedure. If that is so, why the distinction between the two clauses?
    Have we got the limits right? We have had some debate about whether the £100 limit—or the £200 limit, as we propose in our probing amendment—is appropriate. I shall not take up the Committee's time on that; the arguments were rehearsed almost ad infinitum when debating election expenses. However, the Minister will have to ponder the following issue.

    1007
    We have discussed—we shall return to it—what those who are not permitted participants but foreign nationals, individuals or organisations can do in referendum campaigns. The Minister has conceded that they can spend up to £10,000. I find it difficult to identify mechanisms of scrutiny by which one may ascertain how much such individuals spend. It might be a criminal offence for them to spend more than £10,000, but there is nothing to indicate how they are supposed to make a return to the commission, how the commission might investigate them, or how such individuals might be kept under control. In addition, we must accept that because such individuals can spend up to £10,000, all they need do is club together as a group of, say, 10 and they can spend £100,000.
    Are we being reasonable in specifying that if permitted participants spend a penny over £100 they must have an invoice and every conceivable detail, but all other people milling around on the sidelines, dabbling in a referendum campaign, can spend up to £10,000 without having to do so? I am prepared to accept the Minister's guidance. Clause 105 might just cover people who spend money as if there were no tomorrow.
    It seems to me that the issue may be different from that which we discussed when we considered election expenses upstairs. We are imposing all these burdens on the poor old permitted participants, whereas there is a huge loophole allowing others to campaign without turning into third parties, as in the case of elections. They will be able to campaign, put forward their view and argue that a vote should go a particular way, yet they will not be subject to the same controls.
    I should be grateful to hear from the Minister about the precise scope of clauses 105 and 107, and whether the limits that are being imposed are reasonable, in view of the fact that many other people will be able to participate without being subject to such stringent conditions.
    Mr. Tipping: Clause 105 is concerned with goods or services provided to a permitted participant by a third party. Clause 107 is concerned with direct expenditure by a permitted participant. That is the difference between the two clauses.
    The hon. Gentleman spoke about the loose cannons that may get involved, and there may be some. He is always interested in hypothetical situations, in which such loose cannons appear larger than in reality.
    Mr. Jim Dowd (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Loose cannon.
    Mr. Tipping: Loose cannon. I am corrected by a voice that rarely speaks, but when it does, it does so with force.
    The hypothetical situations described by the hon. Gentleman may not develop in reality to the extent that he is tempted to think.
    Let me remind the hon. Gentleman about the de minimis provision. People can spend up to £10,000 without being a permitted party and without having to keep accounts. He asks what monitoring there will be. The commission will examine the matter. The offence is set out in clause 106(2). It is a criminal offence. That will put the brake on overspending, avoidance and evasion.
    1008
    I remember that only a day or two ago, the hon. Gentleman told me that the criminal sanctions in the Bill were far too draconian.
    Mr. Grieve: I counted 68 criminal offences created by the Bill. Some of them are draconian, and some appear absolute—I shall shortly deal with one—and may need amendment. I know that the Minister will do that.
    However, an offence is draconian only if someone can be convicted of it. If I spend £100,000 and am investigated for it, I produce 10 friends and say that we spent £10,000 each.
    Mr. Tipping: Of course that is a possibility. We discussed the matter on Second Reading and on various occasions since. It takes us back to the argument about hypothesis versus reality. I expect that the reality will not be as exciting as the hon. Gentleman tempts me to believe.
    Let me be more helpful to the hon. Gentleman and say that he makes a fair point in amendment No. 50. We discussed the figure in the context of part V. I am happy to accept amendment No. 50—another example of the Bill being improved.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister tell us how often the Bill has had to be improved so far? On how many amendments has he said that he will come back to the Committee? Does not that show how ill prepared the Bill was, rather than how much it has been improved?
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman makes a point, and I shall make another. Under previous Governments, there was a regime where it was seen as inappropriate to make concessions. I remember that he was a Minister in that regime.
    7.45 pm
    Mr. McLoughlin: It was a Government, not a regime.
    Mr. Tipping: It may have been a Government, but the regime introduced by the Government led to their losing office. One of the things that I have been keen to do during the course of the Bill—perhaps the hon. Gentleman will speak to some of his hon. Friends about this—is to listen to the arguments and make concessions where that will improve—
    Mr. McLoughlin: How many?
    Mr. Tipping: I do not have a score chart. I will write to the hon. Gentleman. There have been a good number of occasions when appropriate suggestion were made. We are coming to one from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) in a moment.
    It has been appropriate to make changes because the Bill will affect us all fundamentally. What marks the Bill is the fact that we all know something about the political system, and we all have a contribution to make. I do not accept that the Bill was ill prepared. I remind the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) that it was published in draft form in July. His party had an opportunity to comment on it. If there are failings in it, it

    1009
    reflects badly on those who work for his party that they were not picked up. I shall not be tempted further down that route. He hits a nerve, and I shall return to the matter.
    I am not persuaded to accept amendment No. 51, which deals with receipts and suggests that the value of the receipts should be increased from £100 to £200. There is a case, which the hon. Member for Hazel Grove may make, in relation to smaller organisations. The de minimis provision is £100, which applies in this case, so only organisations that spend more than that will be affected.
    The figure in the Bill is drawn from the Representation of the People Act 1983, where it was set at £20. It has been increased to £100, so that affords referendum campaigns more leeway. However, it is not unreasonable to ask well run, well resourced campaigns to present receipts and invoices.
    These are ultimately matters of judgment. There is not a great deal between £100 and £200. What is important is that a milestone is set down. In my judgment, £100, rather than £200, is the right figure.
    Mr. Grieve: I have reason to be grateful to the Minister, who has given me 50 per cent. more than I expected. I am happy that he has accepted amendment No. 50.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 105, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 106 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 107

    RESTRICTION ON PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF REFERENDUM EXPENSES
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Grieve: I mentioned to the Minister earlier that I would return to a topic that has excited me during the passage of the Bill—the creation of absolute offences. Under clause 107(4), an absolute offence is committed if a person makes a payment in contravention of subsection (1), even if he did so by mistake or with an excuse that he believed to be reasonable. Is that what the Minister intends?
    With regard to the contravention of subsection (3), the reasonable excuse defence exists. Perhaps the Minister will look into that, in the spirit in which he has undertaken to look at other points in the Bill.
    Mr. Tipping: I have already given the hon. Gentleman and the Committee an undertaking that all the defence arguments will be brought in line during the period when we reflect on the Bill. I have heard what he said, and I will of course consider it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 107 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 108

    RESTRICTION ON MAKING CLAIMS IN RESPECT OF REFERENDUM EXPENSES
    Mr. Tipping: I beg to move amendment No. 8, in page 67, line 30, leave out '30' and insert '42'.
    The amendment constitutes plagiarism. Similar amendments, originally tabled by the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), were made to parallel clauses 70 and 85. We accepted his amendments then, and I am happy to move amendment No. 8 now.
    Mr. Stunell: I wish to put on record that the Minister has been helpful and constructive throughout our proceedings. He has not always given us what we wanted—perhaps not even most of what we wanted—but he has always listened carefully. I appreciate his adoption of our amendment, which we tabled early in our proceedings. It provides an opportunity for organisations that make returns to get their paperwork done. Those organisations are often small and inevitably involve human frailty. I am pleased that the Minister has accepted the amendment.
    Amendment agreed to.
    Clause 108, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Clause 109 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 110

    GENERAL RESTRICTION ON REFERENDUM EXPENSES
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Walter: I want to consider again, perhaps in a slightly different way, financial limits and circumstances in which someone who is not a permitted participant can spend up to £10,000. If that person spends more than £10,000,
    "he is guilty of an offence if he knew, or ought reasonably to have known that the expenses were being incurred in excess of that limit."
    When we consider clause 111, we shall discuss the matter in more detail. There is a complex set of formulae for deciding how much various categories of participants—permitted participants, political parties or designated organisations—can spend in a referendum campaign.
    However, there is a loophole, if I dare call it that, which suggests that those who are not permitted participants can spend up to £10,000. Let us consider a specific scenario in which an organisation that, for whatever reason, is not a permitted participant in a referendum campaign and operates in London has several supporters dotted around the country. On a word processor or a laptop in London, the organisation draws up a sample newspaper advertisement to persuade people to vote in a particular way in a referendum campaign. The only missing item from the advertisement is an imprint. The organisation distributes the advertisement to its supporters throughout the country and suggests to them, "Why don't you insert this advertisement in your local newspapers and pay for it out of your own pocket? You won't be a permitted participant, but the advertisement will have a massive impact on the campaign because we'll have newspaper

    1011
    advertisements all over the country. You won't have made any donations to us directly. We're not registered; you're not registered. There's nothing anyone can do about it."
    If we are to exercise rigorous control, more time and consideration should have been given to that obvious loophole. I do not want to trespass on the ground of my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), who will speak shortly, but the alternative is to set no financial limits in referendum campaigns.
    Mr. Hayes: That point is directly related to a matter that the Minister raised earlier. He claimed that the electorate would see through any attempt to disguise support for a specific side in a referendum campaign, and to fund such support. He said that such an attempt would backfire. As my hon. Friend suggests, the attempt could be heavily disguised and thus not transparent. I invite my hon. Friend to challenge the Minister to explain how the electorate can arbitrate when support or funding is heavily veiled.
    Mr. Walter: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. The tenor of the Bill and the Neill report suggests that we are seeking transparency. Exceptions of as much as £10,000 to limits—that figure can be multiplied by people who are not permitted participants acting in concert—can make a significant impact on a referendum campaign.
    I ask the Minister to ponder on whether the financial limits for which the clause provides are appropriate. If they are inappropriate, why should it be an offence to spend more than £10,000?
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman asks me to ponder, and I shall do that. I have listened consistently to the Committee's views. The hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin) chastised me earlier for accepting amendments and thus making changes to the Bill. I believe that that is a sign of strength, not weakness.
    In a previous intervention, the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) was vexed by the European Union. He suggested a scenario in which the European Union secretly funded clandestine organisations throughout the United Kingdom in a referendum campaign, I dare say about the euro. That stretches a hypothesis beyond the pale.
    Mr. Graham Brady rose—
    Mr. Hayes rose—
    Mr. Tipping: I shall not revert to the subject of the European Union. I appreciate that it excites Opposition Members. We had a good opportunity to discuss the European Union earlier.
    The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walker) asked why the figure was set at £10,000 and invited me to reflect on it. I have been reminded that the Neill committee suggested £25,000. I am delighted that the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was a distinguished member of the Neill committee, will be able to participate in the debate. The Government have reduced the figure that the committee suggested. As I said, I shall ponder the matter.
    1012
    The hon. Member for North Dorset gave me an example to consider. He presented the notion of an advertisement that was circulated by friends and supporters of an organisation. It is difficult to comment on hypothetical circumstances, but the organisation in his example seemed to be an unincorporated body by another name. If that was the case, the commission would want to examine the matter and perhaps involve the police and bring a prosecution. However, I do not claim that there is no scope for avoidance and evasion.
    8 pm
    Mr. Swayne: The clause is interesting in that it creates an offence in respect of persons or bodies that are not permitted participants and spend more than £10,000 to influence a campaign. I hope that the Minister will say whether such persons or bodies might indeed include the European Union, of which we have spoken. If not, why not? Will he therefore consider tabling an amendment on Report to make it so?
    Mr. Tipping: Conservative Members tabled amendments on that point, but did not bother to turn up to move them.
    Mr. Swayne: All the more reason for the Minister to consider such a move, given the expression of concern he has heard this evening—although he said that he regards our concerns as pure fantasy. I wonder what world he lives in. He spoke of the EU secretly funding a campaign. There is no question of secrecy; it is doing so openly.
    I draw to the Minister's attention the fact that we held such a referendum in 1975, so our concerns are not fantasy and such referendums occur in the real world. At the beginning of the campaign, there was a 2:1 lead in the opinion polls for withdrawing from what was then the Common Market. By its end, albeit on a low turnout, the vote was 2:1 in favour of staying in. The strength of the argument or the wisdom of the British people might have achieved that result, but I cannot help but think that it had something to do with the fact that the no campaign was outspent by the yes campaign by 20:1.
    Even if our concerns are fantasy and there is no prospect whatever of such a body as the EU spending money secretly or openly, what possible problem can there be with making such provision in the Bill? If that is unlikely to happen, the Minister will lose nothing, but he will gain everything by assuaging the concern, which is not restricted to Conservative Members, but is rife in the country. That is what his spin doctors would call a win-win situation. I invite him to take his opportunity.
    Mr. Hayes: The Minister and I go back a long way and he well knows that I am neither paranoid nor extreme about anything. I am a terribly mild, moderate and reasonable chap, so the last thing in the world that he would want to do is give the false impression that my position is anything less than calm, cool and collected. To correct him, I did not mention the European Union in my intervention; I talked about commercial organisations and multinational companies that might take an interest in funding referendum campaigns. To be absolutely precise,

    1013
    my paranoia—if there is any paranoia at all, and I do not think there is—is more about international capitalism than the European Commission.
    Mr. Tipping: That is a reflection of the change in the political agendas across the parties.
    Mr. Hayes: It is more a reflection of the moderate broad church that is the Conservative party.
    The Minister criticised Conservative Members for not moving amendments dealing specifically with the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) and said that if we felt so strongly we should, at this stage, have moved amendments that would have tightened up the Bill in respect of our particular concerns and fears, but he said also that the Bill is enabling legislation and freely acknowledged that, in the event of a specific referendum campaign at a particular time—many euphemisms have been used, but we all know the spectre that many of us fear—additional legislation specific to those circumstances would be needed. Surely, he cannot have it both ways.
    My contention is that, at this stage, we need to set the tone, broadcast the signals and lay the foundations, which the Minister rightly said would be built on when we faced a particular referendum at an indeterminate time in the future. However, if those foundations are of an entirely different making from the building that is required later, there is little sense in arguing that we can construct a good building on shaky, insecure or inappropriate foundations, because that building will not be appropriate for an occasion that may or may not arise either later in this Parliament or in the next.
    We must lay foundations that clearly and starkly signal—in the House and more widely—our intentions, assumptions and presuppositions about the conduct of future campaigns and how they are to be supported and funded. I am profoundly concerned that we are changing the nature of campaigning and the funding of campaigns. The Minister and I share a love of robust, honest and frank exchanges of views and a civilised concern that those matters should be dealt with in the right way. I emphasise that I know that from the previous life that we shared. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is not it a pity that Hansard does not record irony?
    I am sure that the Minister also shares my desire that referendums and general election campaigns should be conducted, as far as possible, in a spirit of fairness, openness and honesty. The funding of those campaigns is fundamentally important to that fairness and that spirit. I believe, therefore, that these measures will concern decent democrats on both sides of the House—Labour Members as much as Conservative Members—not because they share the same views on what side they might take in a future and so far unspecified referendum, but because they would want that referendum to have a degree of legitimacy. Legitimacy is based on fairness, openness and honesty in terms of funding and the nature of campaigning. I am most concerned that we are missing an opportunity to lay the appropriate foundations on which we could construct a building of which we could all be justly proud.
    Mr. John MacGregor: I had not intended to speak, but the Minister referred to the Neill committee and I was its only member from the House of Commons. I may not have heard everything he said, but I realised that he was not addressing the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) about penalties. As he knows, the Neill committee recommended a limit of £25,000, not in relation to expenditure—we recommended against that and we shall come to it in a moment—but in relation to becoming a registered party and therefore having to observe all the requirements on donations and so on. We now find that there is a limit on expenditure as well, so someone who spends more than £10,000 will be caught on that, too.
    I am worried about lowering the limit, which takes me beyond the clause to schedule 19. I said on Second Reading that I was anxious about the enormous number of offences that would apply to breaches of the clause. All of us on the Neill committee knew that it would be difficult to persuade some people of calibre to be treasurers in such circumstances. That applies to political parties more generally, not just to referendums. To be faced with this horrendous list of offences is a further disincentive to people to take on that role.
    This problem applies acutely to the clause, because £10,000 is not a high expenditure figure when one is trying to put across a point of view. If someone inadvertently exceeded the £10,000 limit, they would, on indictment, be subject to a fine or one year's imprisonment. That is excessive for someone who may inadvertently breach that low limit. I do not think I heard the Minister refer to that point in his response to my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset, and I should be grateful if he would address it because it is relevant if we are to lower the limit from £25,000 to £10,000.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I, too, had not intended to speak in this debate, but when I heard my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) refer to paranoia, it struck me that we should focus on the reality of the problem that the clause is trying to address. It is a fair analysis to argue that this provision looks like an attempt to limit the conduct of the arguments in a referendum to political parties, and to extend the control of party Whips.
    As we know, arguments in referendums tend to extend across parties. By insisting that a body can only spend up to £10,000 if it is not a permitted participant, this provision not only creates a mismatch but, one has to conclude, intends to favour political parties, as the participants, in putting forward the arguments in a referendum.
    As my hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings said, there are plenty of other bodies with legitimate interests in the arguments presented in any referendum campaign. The provision would choke the campaigning abilities of legitimate interested parties. When he spoke of paranoia, it seemed to me that we should try to understand what problem the clause seeks to address and relate that to the findings of the Neill committee. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said, £10,000 in today's communications world, particularly the broadcast world, is a small sum if one wants to get a message across.

    1015
    I must ask whether the paranoia is on the Government side, given that they have included this provision in the Bill. I have a straightforward question to put to the Minister, and I look forward to receiving an answer. What are the Government afraid of which makes them advance this clause?
    Mr. Brady: I had hoped to make a brief intervention when the Minister was speaking, but he would not allow me to, so I am forced to make a short speech. I took particular exception to the Minister's suggestion that Conservative Members who have raised concerns about the funding of such a referendum may be paranoid or living in a fantasy world. Just because some of my hon. Friends have suggested that the European Union may seek to become engaged in the funding or running of a referendum campaign, it is not appropriate for the Minister merely to brush their concerns aside.
    8.15 pm
    Whether it happens to involve the European Union or some other body, country, interest group, major multinational company or group of companies, we must remember that the major referendum on the horizon will be on whether the United Kingdom should give up its currency and join the euro zone. Such a change would have enormous geopolitical ramifications. It would be a massive step on the road to political integration of the European Union. People in other countries of the European Union may have an interest in discussing and influencing that process, and people across the world will also take an interest in it. It is entirely reasonable to assert that that issue may attract the funding, whether secret or open, that hon. Members have suggested. It is a realistic point to raise.
    I wish that I had kept the reference, but I heard an interesting programme on Radio 4 a couple of weeks ago. One of the key protagonists of the European movement—he has recently written a book—was talking about the circumstances of the 1975 referendum. He made the point that in that campaign there were strong suspicions that funding was provided by agents of other Governments. He was happy with the outcome of the referendum, and had been part of the campaign.
    There were strong suggestions that funding had come from the CIA, which, on behalf of the United States Government, was keen to promote the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community. I do not know whether that is true. That person had no axe to grind and no interest in falsely suggesting that overseas Government funding was involved in that campaign. If that could happen then on a related issue, it could certainly happen now. It is not satisfactory for Ministers to brush aside these issues and suggest that only some Conservative Members with long-standing concerns about the European Union have expressed anxiety about the clause.
    Mr. Swayne: There is every prospect that, in any referendum on this issue, the present governing party will be on the losing side. It should protect itself against the real possibility that international organisations, such as the North American Free Trade Agreement, may fund the side that it opposes.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that important point. We are debating the issue of fairness
    1016
    in the conduct of a referendum. Whichever side of the argument one is on, it is in the interests of both sides to have a proper, fair campaign.
    Mr. Miller: The hon. Gentleman should reflect on the fact that the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) has just argued the case for having no upper limit. Conservative Members are talking at cross-purposes.
    Mr. Brady: It is perfectly appropriate to examine the clause from all angles. I have no difficulty with that, and I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has entered the debate. Whether the limit should be removed altogether or whether it should be £10,000, £25,000 or any other appropriate figure can be argued all ways, but that does not do away with the fundamental point about fairness to which my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) referred. This is about having a level playing field and maximum transparency.
    I have some reservations about the £10,000 limit because it interferes with people's freedom to engage in political activity and to expend their own resources on a matter that may be of great significance to them. If the Government are intent on including a £10,000 limit in the legislation, they should carefully consider all the circumstances and how it could be enforced.
    I ask the Minister to reflect on the situation provided for by clause 110, as it stands. The clause makes a distinction between, for instance, a body and an individual. At what stage of co-operation, or coalescence, between individuals do those individuals become a body in the terms of the clause? That is difficult to define.
    A common theme has been seen to develop in the present age of the internet. Direct action supported by some Labour Members—I do not think that they are present this evening—has taken place in Seattle and in the City of London. Some of those activities are obviously co-ordinated in some way, frequently through the internet. The internet is clearly a way of bringing together disparate people and groups who may have slightly different interests, and different reasons for engaging in the activities in which they are participating. However, it is an increasing fact of modern life that it is far easier today to post, on the internet, a statement urging people to take some action, and others may independently, as individuals, choose to take that action.
    Such people need not be members of an organisation such as a political party, a lobby group or a campaigning body, but, at that point, they would clearly be acting in concert to some extent. Under the Bill as it stands, how would Ministers define the point at which those individuals became a body?
    If individual expenditure is involved, other questions need to be answered. If an individual is spending his own money in the way envisaged in the Bill, that may be one thing; but what if a person or body seeks to assist a number of different individuals who—as is perfectly possible—may support people on both sides of an argument? I do not know whether this still happens, but not so long ago some major British companies made a point of funding both major political parties, because they thought it a good idea to support the democratic process. It is possible that someone will see a good reason to support both sides of an argument in the future, perhaps to ensure that the process receives adequate funds.

    1017
    In terms of subsection (3)(a), what is the definition of expense incurred "on behalf of a body? Must it be according to the direction of the body providing the funds? What if there is total autonomy on the part of the recipient of the funds in terms of how they are spent, how the argument is presented and what media are used to convey the argument? As it stands, the clause contains many holes and poses many questions.
    What arrangements does the Minister envisage for the checking and verification of expenditure? The clause does not appear to involve professional organisations or political parties. The aspect that concerns the individual is clearly aimed at those who may have strong beliefs, but are not part of a formal, organised political entity or process. If that is the case, we are clearly not dealing with professional political party agents who know the procedures for returning expenses incurred during elections or, in this instance, referendums.
    How will expenditure be checked, verified and catalogued? How can that be done in the case of people who are not even registered entities? They may simply be ordinary members of the public who feel so strongly about the subject of a referendum that they want to become involved, and to make some impact on their own. As a result, they may distribute posters or leaflets. How, in such instances, can the £10,000 limit be policed in any meaningful way? If the Minister has decided that £10,000 is appropriate, rather than £25,000 or any other figure, we must have a mechanism enabling us to verify the expenditure and establish the items that will count towards that sum.
    Although we may be dealing with enthusiastic amateurs, I think that the Government should make all that clear in detail so that the individuals concerned can have some certainty. If they are to be subject to the stringent criminal penalties referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), they must be able to know when they would be breaking the law.
    As we have heard, fines or imprisonment can be imposed on individuals. Let me return to what at least purports to be the fundamental purpose of this part of the Bill. In the spirit of the Neill report, its purpose is to achieve fairness in the process of a referendum, and, through that, in the outcome; but the punishment that might be visited on an individual who exceeded the expenditure limits—imprisonment or a fine—would clearly have no bearing on the outcome of the referendum.
    If Members of Parliament mistakenly overspend in their election campaigns, a penalty can be imposed involving the rerunning of the election. If someone engages in practices contrary to the spirit of the democratic process, the matter can be returned to the electors, who can be given another opportunity to engage in a contest that achieves the fairness that Ministers, in the spirit of the Neill report, want to achieve in the Bill. Clause 110, however, contains provisions that can be invoked to punish individuals who transgress—perhaps inadvertently—but no provision to bring the matter back. If there has been a widespread abuse, we may conclude that the referendum process was unfair, and that the result of the referendum is therefore tainted; yet we may find that people go to prison or pay a fine, while the result stands.
    1018
    As I said, I did not intend to speak on this, but I feel that there are serious flaws in clause 110. The Committee needs some answers.
    Mr. Walter: I had not intended to intervene again on the clause, but my right hon. and hon. Friends have raised some interesting points. They brought me back to our discussion on whether the clause in its entirety complies with the European convention on human rights.
    I was intrigued to find on the Table a copy of the Bill that is not the same as the copy that we had on Second Reading, or were using in Committee. It has a statement about the convention, which was not there before. It states that the Home Secretary believes that the Bill is compatible with the convention.
    8.30 pm
    My hon. Friends who have been here for the whole of the debate will have heard the Minister use the convention as a reason for not permitting certain of our amendments to go forward, but article 10 states:
    "This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers."
    The Minister has cited clause 110 as the reason it is not possible to exclude foreigners from being third parties, or permitted participants. Surely, article 10 brings into question whether the clause complies with the convention. I would be interested to hear his view because it seems that, if the convention says that one can impart information without interference, a £10,000 limit with criminal penalties of up to a year's imprisonment may contravene the convention.
    Mr. Tipping: I am conscious that I have spoken before and that the Committee wants to make progress. I hesitate to say it in view of the contributions that we have had over the past half hour or so, but there are one or two points to which I want to respond.
    The hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) asked whether the Bill complies with the Human Rights Act 1998. That is why the Secretary of State's name is on the front of it. It is straightforward. We put the Bill on the Table in front of the hon. Gentleman so that he knows. It may be challengeable, but that is the fact as we see it.
    The hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) was saying, I think, that anyone should be able to spend what they want.
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: What are you afraid of?
    Mr. Tipping: I am not afraid of anything. People can spend what they want. There is no prescription of what an individual can spend, up to £500,000. If someone wants to spend more than £10,000, they will have to become a permitted party in the terms of the Bill. People can spend far more. I am not afraid of these issues.
    There will be consequences if people spend large sums. One of the themes that has run in Committee is whether both sides of the argument will be balanced. Clearly, that can never be the case—a point that Neill recognised and the Government recognise. To try to contain spending, caps at various levels have been imposed.

    1019
    The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) tried to tempt me down the European Union road yet again. We had a prolonged discussion on clause 98 around those issues. I say for the record—it is merely for the record; I do not criticise it—that amendments on restricting EU contributions, amendments Nos. 14, 15 and 16, were not moved by Conservative Members. Having seen the reaction and excitement of Members during the debate, I have no doubt that there will be many other occasions when we will have the opportunity to discuss referendums, the euro and the EU's involvement. Many of us will welcome that.
    The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) made one significant point, and throughout its discussions, the Committee has been aware of it. The Bill places some fairly onerous responsibilities on treasurers and responsible persons. There is anxiety—I put it no higher—that it may be difficult to persuade people to become involved as fully as they might in the political process. At various points in the Bill, de minimis provisions are worked in. During our discussions, it was acknowledged across the Committee that the de minimis provisions as they affect constituencies and branches are acceptable and should not cause the problems that they might appear to on first sight of the Bill.
    The right hon. Gentleman asked me about the £10,000 limit and the criminal sanctions. I do not think that he heard my earlier remarks to the hon. Member for North Dorset, who was pressing hard—I am sure that he will continue to press—on what provisions are made to stop avoidance and evasion, and asking what in reality would stop a person from spending more than £10,000. Currently, the only provision in the Bill to achieve that objective is the hefty criminal sanctions.
    The right hon. Member for South Norfolk rightly mentioned—the Committee has discussed the issue at length—the number of criminal offences listed in schedule 19. I agree with his major point that we must be careful not to make the Bill's provisions so strong, firm and frightening that it will put people off engaging in political activity. We should realise that, although political activity may have earned itself a bad name, the Bill will help to rectify the situation.
    Despite what has been said, I believe that most people who work in political parties are the type of people who are involved in charitable work, who want to make a difference and who want to change their communities for the better.
    Mr. MacGregor: I was making that point, but I was also making a point on clause 110 that was rather different from the first one. By lowering the limit from £25,000 to £10,000, one increases the risk of people inadvertently spending modest sums in making their case and yet incurring those heavy criminal sanctions. The two points are slightly different from each other. If the limit were £25,000 as the Neill committee recommended, the provision would not be quite so serious.
    Mr. Tipping: The right hon. Gentleman has hit on a theme that has occupied members of this Committee, and particularly Conservative Members—the Bill's provision of defence clauses. Surely, the type of person whom I described—those who act in good faith and who want to make change and to be part of the process—provided that they act in good faith and properly, should not be penalised for mistakes.
    1020
    In our debates, I have given the Committee an assurance that the Government have written in more comprehensive defence arguments. I have also, more than once, given the Committee an undertaking that, before Report, we shall work our way through the Bill, to ensure that the defence arguments and reasons are comprehensive and in good shape.
    With that, I hope that the Committee will agree that clause 110 should stand part.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 110 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 111

    SPECIAL RESTRICTIONS ON REFERENDUM EXPENSES BY PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    The Second Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss schedule 13 stand part and new clause 4—Spending limits in referendums—
    '.—(1) The Commission shall review from time to time the question of spending limits in referendums.
    (2) The Commission shall present a report on any review under subsection (1) above to each House of Parliament.'.
    Sir George Young: This debate complements the debate that we have just had, which was introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter) and focused on the lower expenditure limit of £10,000. This debate will examine the much higher expenditure limits that are provided for, particularly in schedule 13, and address one of the major contentious issues in the Bill.
    In the earlier debate, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office said that it was a sign of strength each time he made a concession to the Opposition. We seek a display of yet more strength in this debate, although it may test his virility to the extreme as we consider clause 111 stand part.
    In a nutshell, we believe that the Government have got the matter wrong. We believe that they have it wrong in principle and in practice. We therefore propose to delete the spending limits provided for in the Bill and revert to the position adopted by the Neill committee. If I can use a computer analogy, the Government have turned the parliamentary screen blue. We now need to press a number of buttons, including delete, to try to get back to a workable position.
    There were no spending limits in the 1975 referendum, when the Labour Government of the day concluded that such measures would be impractical. The Welsh and Scottish devolution referendums in 1979 had no limits. The Referendums (Scotland and Wales) Act 1997, the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998, the Northern Ireland Negotiations (Referendum) Order 1998 and the Education (Grammar School Ballots) Regulations 1998 contained no limits. The Local Government Bill, which provides for local referendums on mayoral appointments and other issues, also contains no spending limits.

    1021
    The Neill committee looked at the issue in depth and reported in October 1998. In paragraph 12.45, it conceded:
    "The case, in principle, for imposing spending limits in referendum campaigns is a strong one."
    However, the next paragraph concludes:
    "We believe, however, that it would be futile and possibly also wrong to attempt to impose such limits in connection with referendums."
    The report goes on to describe the circumstances of a referendum, which include strange bedfellows, participants not confined to the political parties and unknown timing. Explaining its conclusion, the committee says:
    "It appears to us that under these circumstances it would be impracticable to try to control campaign spending. The number of individuals and organisations involved would often be too large. The time-scale would often be too short. Adequate accounting procedures would often be impossible to put in place. The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work."
    The commission on the conduct of referendums reached the same conclusion in 1996, saying:
    "On balance, it is not considered practical to exercise Government control over the total expenditure by those campaigning on either side in a referendum."
    Notwithstanding those conclusions, the Government rejected the Neill committee's advice, although anyone reading the White Paper might be forgiven for not realising that. Chapter 8, on referendums, says:
    "The Committee's report contains a set of recommendations on these matters which the Government accepts."
    That is Government speak for "The committee's report contains one major recommendation, which the Government reject." That semblance of acceptance of Neill, with the Government in denial mode, was repeated by the Home Secretary on Second Reading. He said:
    "I have sought to ensure that the spirit, as well as the letter, of the Neill committee's recommendations on referendums is introduced into the Bill."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 36.]
    That was a surprising assertion, as Neill considered and specifically rejected the Home Secretary's solution. The Government not only rejected the committee's principal conclusions, but went on to adopt a solution that the committee had explicitly rejected—an expenditure limit based on votes at the most recent general election. That formula is set out in schedule 13.
    There are three options. The first is that each side in a referendum campaign spends the same amount. Option two is that what each participant can spend is limited. Option three is that there are no limits. The intuitive solution is option one—that in a referendum campaign, the yes and the no side should have equal funding. Sadly, that is ruled out by nearly everyone. However attractive it may be to try to corral all those with an interest in the outcome into two large camps, each with an identical spending cap in the interests of equity, it does not work. When it was tried in Quebec, it was struck down on legal grounds as a violation of the right of freedom of expression of those who did not want to be in one of those two camps. As the Home Secretary said on Second Reading, if we tried to do that here, it would be vulnerable to legal challenge under article 10 of the European
    1022
    convention on human rights. In the clause 98 stand part debate, the Minister said that option one, with each side spending the same, was a cloud cuckoo land solution.
    If that option is not available, those who favour spending restrictions on participants are driven to option 2, which is set out in clause 111 and schedule 13. However, spending restrictions on participants do not work either, particularly when the participants are defined as they are in the Bill.
    8.45 pm
    In paragraph 12.21, Neill clearly made the point that
    "in referendums the political parties may be pitted one against another, or most of the parties may find themselves on the same side … or one or more of them may be seriously split … Whatever happens in any particular case, it is clear that general rules governing the conduct of referendums cannot be based on predictions about the parties' behaviour or assumptions about their role."
    Neill dismissed the assertion by the Labour party in its evidence that
    "the focus of any regulation should be on the political parties."
    It is worth repeating Neill's conclusions:
    "To represent referendum campaigns as merely another manifestation of the usual party political battle seems to us both misconceived in principle and false to the history".
    But that is exactly what is manifested in the Bill.
    In fairness to the Government, they recognised the vulnerability of their proposals during our debate on Second Reading. The speeches of Ministers were peppered with recognition of the difficulties, and with almost desperate invitations to the House to come up with something different. The Home Secretary said:
    "We remain open to argument if better, more workable proposals can be introduced."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 39.]
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department said in winding-up:
    "I repeat that we do not have a closed mind on the issue."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 113.]
    This debate will test that assertion.
    On Second Reading, this aspect of the Bill engaged the attention of many of those who spoke; and the Government's proposals took on board a fair amount of water. That is significant because it was in the context of broad support for the Bill, which had an unopposed Second Reading.
    The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said:
    "For the proposals on the financing of third parties that want to campaign in a referendum to be workable, we shall have to lock some people up."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 54.]
    I recognise that, with the present Home Secretary, that may well be an argument in its favour, but the more squeamish among us will want to see if there is a third way.
    My right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who was a member of the Neill committee, reaffirmed its recommendations. He said:
    "That is why the Neill committee found that it would be difficult to have a fair, workable system of capping in referendums. I still hold to that view",—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 67.]
    The hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. MacShane) made the point that one referendum campaign—on Europe—is under way already, so the limits in the Bill

    1023
    are to some extent redundant. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) said that these sections of the Bill "remain flawed".
    My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) used his legendary knowledge of the component parts of the pro-nuclear disarmament movement in the 1970s and 1980s to show how the limits in the Bill could easily be evaded. He concluded:
    "That is why the whole concept of putting caps on what may be spent by parties or groups in a referendum is fundamentally flawed."—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 107.]
    I stand to be corrected, but I could not find in Hansard during the Second Reading debate one explicit endorsement of the Government's proposals. There was criticism from all sides, and even the Ministers were uncharacteristically hesitant in their advocacy.
    The reality is that they have come up with something that is neither defensible intellectually, nor deliverable in practice. It is fatally flawed in relating spending power to votes at the general election. There is no intellectual argument whatsoever for that limit. As Neill pointed out, general rules governing the conduct of referendums cannot be based on predictions about parties' behaviour or assumptions about their role. If we are resolving in a referendum an issue that it has not been possible to resolve through a general election, and on which major parties may be split, why should we base spending limits on the basis of votes cast at the last election? If, for the sake of argument, the amount Labour could spend on a yes vote in a euro referendum was based on how many votes it got at the next general election, that would be assuming that everyone who votes Labour would like to join, but we all know that that is not the case.
    If we had a referendum on proportional representation, how would Labour's entitlement to spend be determined? It has no policy on PR—we all know that it is split. Why should all Labour's spending power be allocated to one side of the argument according to the whim of the national executive? That is an absurd proposition, rejected by Neill and supported by no one.
    It is also incongruous to place spending limits on the protagonists in a referendum, when the media remain free to sponsor or promote any campaign they see fit. Indeed, one of the protagonists could simply buy a newspaper or magazine and circumvent the restrictions, and the message might not be seen as an advertisement, but as unbiased editorial comment.
    Not only are there some arguments of principle, but there are some practical problems, many of which were rehearsed earlier in Committee, including the so-called amoeba factor where a group simply divides itself into two. Individuals can form an unlimited number of partnerships or establish an unlimited number of companies. If they registered as permitted participants, they could then each spend up to an amount prescribed in the Bill. Of course, any spending controls can be got round by spending prior to the official commencement of the campaign.
    One interesting point that we raised earlier in Committee was that political parties can donate to other political parties under clause 48(2)(c). On Second Reading, the Home Secretary defended his limits as being unbiased because, he said, it was a "racing certainty" that the Liberal Democrats could never raise £3.5 million. However, they would not need to raise the money
    1024
    themselves because Labour could simply give it to them under clause 48(2). We heard earlier about the potential role of international organisations. I do not wish to spend too much time on Europe, but in effect the Minister pleaded with European institutions not to get involved in domestic referendums and another hon. Member remarked that that might be counterproductive. That may be right, but the Minister's pleading may fall on deaf ears. On top of what might be spent in this country, foreign donations—about which we have heard so much—could influence the outcome of a domestic referendum.
    We are left with option three of no spending limits, which is the preferred option of Neill and others. I think that that is the best solution, certainly in the short term. Of course, we want to avoid a re-run of the situation in Wales, where one side had lots of money and the other very little, and the possibility—I put it no higher than that—that that influenced the outcome. However, let us look at the likely referendums in the near future, which include first past the post against alternative vote plus, and entry into the euro. In neither case is it likely that any side will want for financial support. On the euro, there are some big battalions on both sides, as there are on the voting system. Once those two referendums are out of the way, new clause 4 can kick in, and the Electoral Commission can reflect on that and come up with its views.
    The Government have been flexible on the Bill, and they have said that they will consider and reflect in the light of our debates. It really is important they do the same on this issue, otherwise the verdict of the referendum will not have the validity that we all want. A few hours ago, the voting closed in the Labour party's selection of a candidate for the mayor of London. I do not mind the Labour party having strange rules for its internal elections, but the Committee should think twice before it imports unchallenged into the Bill the propositions before us tonight.
    Sir Michael Spicer: As my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) has just said, the problem with clause 111 as it stands is that it is unfair in two ways. First, at the moment all the official parties in the House—with the exception of the Conservatives—are in favour of a yes vote in a referendum on the euro. The formula in clause 111 and schedule 13 would mean that much more money would be collected by the yes campaign. On grounds of general equity, that would be inappropriate.
    The second unfairness is much more serious and it was alluded to by Neill, as well as by my right hon. Friend. In chapter 12.30, Neill states:
    "To represent referendum campaigns as merely another manifestation of the usual party political battle seems to us both misconceived in principle and false to the history of referendums since 1975."
    The reason that Neill gives, as my right hon. Friend mentioned, is that political parties are alliances. All parties are split on the question of Europe, for example. The hon. Member for North Devon (Mr. Harvey) has his own faction in the Liberal Democrat party. That party's official position on Europe has been clear for many years, and it is that it wants a federal European state. However, the party's membership and electors hold a view that is very different from that of the party establishment.

    1025
    The same is true of the Labour party.
    Mr. Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that, in a campaign on the euro, for example, part of Conservative party resources should be allocated to promoting the views of the hon. Member for Esher and Walton (Mr. Taylor), which contrast with the hon. Gentleman's own views?
    Sir Michael Spicer: I am saying that the Bill is nonsense. I am dealing with unfairness at the moment, but I shall come to questions of logic and principle in a moment.
    The leadership of the Labour party suppresses the faction led by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Many Labour Members support views that are diametrically opposite to those held by the party leadership. The fact that parties are alliances is therefore manifest throughout the House.
    The same is true of other permitted participants in the referendum campaign, such as the trade unions. Some of the biggest unions—the Transport and General Workers Union, for example, and Unison—have come out against entry to the single currency. However, the established leadership of many of the unions that took part in last year's Trades Union Congress special conference on the matter clearly demonstrated its support for the project. The unions' leadership—and, therefore, the people whom one presumes would apply for the money available under the clause—is committed in one direction, but members are much less convinced. That difference was fudged at the special conference.
    It is not surprising that trade union members should be so unhappy about the European question, as 69 per cent. of the entire population share their views. The same fault line runs through most of our institutions, but the Bill provides that overwhelming amounts of money will be collected by organisations whose established leaderships have settled on a particular point of view—in many cases, without the full-blooded support of their members.
    The Bill is therefore manifestly unfair to the memberships of the political parties and the other organisations involved in the referendum campaign. The Conservative position is the correct one. Neill looked at the matter very carefully and his arguments are very balanced. He concluded that it would be completely wrong to use political parties as the basis for the allocation of limits on referendum expenses.
    Secondly, Neill came to the conclusion—this was implicit in what he said—that if that process was engaged upon, given the present position of most of the establishments of the political parties and trade unions, campaign funding would be unbalanced. That seems a poor way of establishing fairness.
    9 pm
    The clause throws up something even more fundamental about the Bill. It demonstrates how obsessed the Government are with trying to control spending amounts, and in a way that is unfair. The Bill is sloppy when it comes to other important aspects that it should be addressing, such as the powers of the commission to set
    1026
    the question. The Government have said that they will look at such matters again, but they have displayed a sloppiness of thinking in that respect. However, that is not the case when it comes to money. The Government are absolutely obsessed about controlling expenditure in a way that could do great harm to the cause of democracy, in so far as it is represented by a referendum.
    I support my right hon. and hon. Friends in that it must be right to go down the Neill path. There should be no limits on referendum campaign spending, because they are both appropriate and impossible to apply.
    Mr. MacGregor: I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) on his speech in opening the debate. He expressed admirably a series of arguments that totally demolished the Government's case. I will not go into some of them in detail because, happily, he has already done so.
    I agree with my right hon. Friend that, on Second Reading, the Home Secretary and the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), displayed an openness of mind on the issue. They seemed to be looking to the House to come up with an alternative solution that would meet our objections. We have racked our brains; so has the Neill committee, and so, no doubt, have the Government. No one has an alternative solution except to remove limits on spending. That is the position that we have reached, and I think that it is correct, which means voting against clause 111.
    As is well known to those who follow these matters, on the Neill committee I held a minority position on spending on general elections. I took the view that the Neill committee's recommendation to have a spending limit was wrong, and I briefly set out my reasons in the report. Two of those reasons are relevant to this debate. First, I believe that to have spending limits in these crucial areas of national importance is an unwarranted restriction on freedom of speech. Secondly, I believe that the practical difficulties of evasion and enforcement that apply to the general election will apply even more to referendums.
    A retired party official, in giving evidence to the Neill committee, said, "Show me a limit and I'll show you how to get round it." Illustrations were given on Second Reading and again tonight on how it is possible to get round a limit. If that is true of general elections—as I think it is—it is true in spades when it comes to putting limits on referendum campaign spending. The Neill committee was unanimously against the idea.
    I found it fascinating to go through all the arguments to reach a conclusion. Wryly, I sometimes thought that the arguments justified my desire not to have spending limits on the general election campaign. Leaving aside the point of principle, we all believed that the practical difficulties were such that there was no case for recommending spending limits.
    Let me list some of my objections. The first is an objection of principle. Without taking sides in the euro debate, I refer to the issue of the referendum on the single currency. Clearly, that is a crucial national decision, which is, in theory, irreversible. Because of the key importance of that national debate, is it right to set a limit that is less than a company's yearly spending on

    1027
    marketing detergents? It is astonishing that we cannot even spend as much as is spent on the marketing of one domestic product on that critical national decision.
    The nation, not Parliament, is making the decision. In theory, it will be a permanent commitment—unlike a general election, when the nation can change its mind after four or five years. The measure is an unwarranted restriction on, and interference with, freedom of speech and debate on that crucial issue. That is the point of principle.
    The practical issues point in the same direction. By and large, a general election is fought by political parties with well-established machines and structures, and expertise in matters such as electoral law. Parties have professional management and staff, who are skilled in dealing with issues such as the control of expenditure, the management of limits and related accounting problems.
    That will not happen in a referendum campaign. It may happen for the political parties, but other organisations—whether official ones to which Government funding will be attached or those others listed in the Bill—will be rapidly put together. They will be united by only one thing—the side for which they are fighting in the campaign.
    Those units, parties or organisations will hold different points of view. At best, they will have only six months to sort out all the complications of controlling expenditure, and managing the limits. In practice, it will not be possible for them to do that. There could be many unintended, innocent breaches—especially in the early stages of the campaign.
    The Neill committee dealt with that matter in paragraph 12.46 of our report, which was quoted by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire. The committee's case was based on a long argument, but it is succinctly put in the report. We pointed out that a referendum campaign is not like a general election; it is
    "more like a free-for-all. Anyone can participate. Many do. The political parties may, or may not, be the principal contestants"
    or may be only in part.
    The report continued:
    "It is often not known long in advance whether a referendum will take place."
    The six-month period that will apply will come upon one suddenly. As I pointed out, those on both sides of the campaign may never have worked together before and would not have the structures to control the machine. Sometimes they might be unwilling to co-operate on expenditure. It would be impractical to undertake such a commitment. The committee summed up the point by stating:
    "Adequate accounting procedures would often be impossible to put in place. The administrative apparatus required would resemble one of Heath Robinson's most outlandish contraptions—and would almost certainly not work."
    It is not right to introduce an unworkable proposition, which has criminal penalties attached.
    When we discussed clause 110, I raised the issue of criminal penalties. I do not refer to the difficulty of recruiting treasurers for political parties. My point is that it will be difficult to recruit someone to take on that key role in an organisation that has been hastily brought together for one particular purpose, for only a short time. If that person does not have the machinery to control the organisation, he will be liable for criminal penalties.
    1028
    Third-party groups are difficult enough to control in a general election, although that is crucial when there are expenditure limits. It will be much more difficult to control them in a referendum. There will be many little ad hoc groups. The amoeba principle has been referred to in other debates—there will be many ways to breach the limits by setting up different organisations with different names. In effect, the limit will not be properly adhered to in any case.
    My colleagues have already referred to unfairness, which is another crucial element. Of course, it is true that there is no way that we can achieve total fairness on expenditure either in a general election or in a referendum. We all agree on that, and my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire made that point clearly in his speech. It is important that there is fairness in terms of Government expenditure, and that point has been agreed. It was clear to us on the Neill committee that that point was so important that it should have been applied in earlier referendums. For example, if there had been Government funding for both sides in the Welsh referendum, I suspect that the Government would have been spared a great deal of their current embarrassment because we would not have a Welsh Assembly.
    Another aspect of unfairness is the undue emphasis given to political parties in a referendum, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) has just made. I do not understand why the funding should be based on political parties.
    Mr. Brady: Did my right hon. Friend and his colleagues on the Neill committee consider the situation that appertained at the last general election? A political party attracted quite a large number of votes, but it had no position on the European issue. I refer to the Referendum party, which wished to have a referendum but did not take a stance as to whether one should vote yes or no in it. The people who voted for the Referendum party would properly accrue a share of the expenditure limit in the same way as others, but that party did not adopt a position on the issue.
    Mr. MacGregor: We did not consider that issue, but my hon. Friend makes a point. I am sure that there are many other issues that we did not consider which point in the same direction.
    I acknowledge that the formula has been improved since the original proposal to which Lord Neill objected and about which he wrote to the Home Secretary. However, it is still far from satisfactory. It could lead to a manifestly unfair outcome with four of the political parties perhaps being on one side in the referendum, with only one on the other. I do not see why we should set up a formula that is weighted in that way, but that will happen because the formula is weighted towards the political parties.
    There are many reasons why we should reject the clause. It will clearly give the Government an advantage in whatever position they wish to take. Let us assume that there is a six-month period for the referendum campaign. The Government will still be allowed to campaign with substantial funding for five of those six months, whereas all the others will be constrained during the six months by the limits that apply to them. That is another element of complete unfairness.

    1029
    I return to the position that my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire and the Neill committee have held about expenditure limits generally. The proposal is wrong in principle and unworkable and there is not another solution available. The right thing to do is to reject the clause.
    Mr. Stunell: The Conservatives' arguments on the clause and schedule 13 are misconceived. I shall illustrate why I think that is so and I invite them to consider what would happen if they were successful in rejecting the clause.
    What the clause proposes and the schedule puts in place is not an absolute limit on the spending that will be available to any particular side in any particular referendum campaign. They limit the amount that individual participants can contribute to that campaign. A campaign that attracts funds from many participants—political parties, manufacturing industry and trade unions—can receive as many contributions from those bodies as it can accumulate. The Bill places a ceiling on the contributions of each of those bodies, but as far as I can see, there is no provision for a global ceiling for any campaign seeking a particular outcome in a referendum.
    Mr. MacGregor: Does that not make a nonsense of having a ceiling at all?
    9.15 pm
    Mr. Stunell: I shall perhaps illustrate that it does not, although I do not know whether that will be to the right hon. Gentleman's satisfaction, but I shall first develop my argument a little further.
    The debate so far suggests that the Bill provides not so much for a limit as for a grant, so that money will be given which can be spent to the set limits. That is not the case.
    If we adopt the scheme in the Bill and Conservative Members' assumptions are correct, the Conservative side—let us call it that for the sake of argument—in a euro debate would be able to attract a ceiling of £10 million. That would consist of £5 million for the umbrella body and £5 million for the Conservative party, being one that scored more than 30 per cent. of the vote in the previous general election.
    Conversely, the other side of the debate would attract a ceiling of £5 million for its umbrella organisation. It would also attract £5 million for the Labour party, as one that got over 30 per cent. of the vote at the previous election, and £3 million for the Liberal Democrats. If Conservative Members' assumptions about other parties in the House are right, seven other parties would be able to attract ceilings of £500,000 each. The total ceiling for that side of the debate would be £16.5 million, compared with the total ceiling of £10 million for the Conservative side.
    It has been said that that is where the unfairness lies, but that is not the case. What other options are there for a no campaign that wants to spend over £10 million? It can recruit any individual, company and unincorporated association prepared to contribute up to £500,000.
    Mr. Swayne: It is of course possible for a handicapped horse to win a race, but it nevertheless begins with a
    1030
    handicap. That is the position that the hon. Gentleman seems to be espousing. It might be possible for a political party to overcome a handicap, but it is still unfair that it should start with one.
    Mr. Stunell: That is where the Conservatives have got the whole argument fundamentally upside down. It is not a question of whether a political party is handicapped, because as the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out earlier, the various parties have different views within them, and it might well be that a party was committing to the argument a sum that fell a long way short of the amount allowed by the expenditure ceiling. If there were serious internal divisions, the party's fund-raising attempts and the determination of its executive to apply the funds to a particular cause might be inhibited.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The point is not that political parties would be handicapped—we have been arguing that the emphasis should not be on political parties—but that a particular side of the argument would be handicapped, as the hon. Gentleman has rather brilliantly explained.
    Mr. Stunell: Let me develop my point a little further. There is such a fundamental disconnection between the arguments being put by the Conservatives and real life that it will take a while to explain it. We have not yet considered the situation of the Democracy movement, which is not part of the calculation at present, the UK Independence party, or any other extraparliamentary party which is now represented in the European Parliament and possibly elsewhere. There will be other participants in the campaign and each will have a limit on its spending. That is what the Bill proposes.
    I ask Conservative Members to address themselves to the unfairness that would be generated if we accepted their scheme instead. The view that the Conservatives have presented to the Committee is that there should be no limit on the spending of any political party in any referendum. There would therefore be no limit on the expenditure of every one of the nine non-Conservative parties represented in this House. Let us suppose that every one chose to spend as much on a referendum campaign as the Conservatives spent on the general election campaign—£28 million. Under the Bill, the anti-Conservative forces would be restricted to spending £16.5 million, but under Conservative proposals, £250 million would be the barrier.
    The Conservatives will say that the Liberal Democrats would never spend £28 million. That is precisely my point. The legal limits in the Bill cap the expenditure of any participant in a referendum campaign but would not limit expenditure of one side of the argument as a whole. That seems fairer and less unequal than Conservative proposals.
    The right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. McGregor) said clearly that he was opposed to any financial limits for general elections or referendums. We really must decide whether we prefer to use the word "referendums" or "referenda". [Interruption.] Typically, the Government have one view and the Opposition another.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Stick to the Latin.
    Mr. Stunell: If I recall Standing Orders correctly, I believe that I am required to speak English in the Chamber.

    1031
    I take a different view from the right hon. Member for South Norfolk. We must create a more level playing field; we need more balanced legislative requirements. That is why the Liberal Democrats have throughout supported the principle of a limit on national expenditure in general election campaigns, and why we certainly support introducing limits on expenditure in referendum campaigns.
    Let us be clear: the Bill—I am not sure whether it is the Government's intention—prevents one participant on one side of the argument distorting the value and impact of a campaign by jacking in £28 million, or whatever the sum might be. A large amount of money can be spent, but only if a wide range of bodies and organisations are committed to one cause. That is an appropriate way forward.
    It has been argued that one poor, impoverished, unsupported political party, isolated and marooned, carrying the flag for a point of view in a referendum, could be overwhelmed by Scottish and Welsh nationalists and Liberal Democrats, all of whom will have pumped large sums of money into the campaign. What world do people who present such arguments inhabit, for goodness sake? It is not like that at all.
    Mr. David Rendel: I wish it were.
    Mr. Stunell: We certainly do. I would love to regale Members with some of the stories that have come out of our proceedings upstairs. My local party does not have a budget of £250,000 a year, although I know one or two local Conservative parties that do—and good luck to them.
    Let us please keep in touch with the real world and understand what the Bill does and does not allow. It does not put the Conservatives at a disadvantage. It introduces sensible limits, which the public are expecting this House to set. Indeed, they would be disgusted with us if we failed to do so. The limits will protect democracy in future and, in due course, benefit the Conservative party just as much as they will any other political force inside or outside this House.
    Mr. Swayne: I shall try to reconnect the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) with reality. I noticed that during his powerful speech, he did not address himself to any of the arguments made by the Neill committee, which set out the reasons for not having such limits.
    It is nonsense that the amount spent by a political party in a referendum campaign should be linked, as it is in schedule 13, to the proportion of votes cast in a preceding general election. A general election is a referendum, so to speak, on any number of issues. People do not have the single-issue focus that determines their vote in a subsequent referendum. Indeed, they may well support a political party in a general election for a particular reason, while being wholly opposed to that political party's stance on the issue that is the subject of a subsequent referendum.
    Political parties recognise that and play it for all it is worth, as we see from the spin being put out for the next general election. The governing party is determined that the next general election should not be a sterling election, because it recognises that at present 69 per cent. in the opinion polls are deeply anxious about the prospect of
    1032
    sterling being abolished. The Government therefore want to make it clear that the next general election is not about that. It is about any number of other issues, and that topic can be addressed subsequently in a single-issue referendum.
    Of course, that is entirely disingenuous to the voter, whose vote at the general election will determine the expenditure of a political party at the subsequent referendum. The logic of that is monstrous—that someone who is wholly opposed to a political party's stance on the referendum issue should, by casting his vote for that political party quite properly on other issues at a general election, nevertheless play a part in determining the expenditure permitted to that party at the subsequent referendum.
    Mr. Stunell: I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman is following his own logic. Is he saying that he would be happier for that party to have no limit on how much it pumped into a campaign with which that voter disagreed, or that he would prefer to have a limit? He seems to be arguing in favour of a worse evil than the one about which he is complaining.
    Mr. Swayne: No. I believe that the logic of the clause is monstrous, and I do not want the clause or the schedule in the Bill at all. I shall vote against them.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: Argue that.
    Mr. Swayne: I am arguing it now.
    The Minister is aware that there is an issue with respect to parties being split. It has been drawn to our attention by the Neill committee. I suggest that one of the reasons for calling referendums is the fact that parties are split on the issue.
    Mr. Stunell rose
    Mr. Swayne: Let me answer the hon. Gentleman's last point, before he makes his next one.
    It may be more logical than the position set out in the clause to argue that political parties have no right to spend any money on a referendum campaign, because the purpose of a representative democracy is that political parties, on the strength of their votes, should determine the issues on the basis of arguments presented in the Chamber.
    It seems to me more logical that the political parties, having handed that decision to the people in direct democracy rather than representative democracy, should stand back and spend nothing as political parties, but allow everything to be carried forward under the umbrella campaign. That is not what the clause states, which is a powerful reason for voting against it.
    Mr. Stunell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way. He seems to be moving round to my position that there should be a limit; he just thinks that it should be set at zero, not £5 million. How can he be happy for the Labour party, for instance, under the strict control of the Prime Minister, to be committed to spending, say, £26 million, as it did in the general election, in order to support a yes vote? Would

    1033
    he not prefer the Labour party to be limited to spending only £5 million in support of a yes vote, or zero, as he now seems to be offering the House?
    9.30 pm
    Mr. Swayne: The hon. Member for Hazel Grove illustrates effectively the problem of setting any spending limit in a referendum campaign. The Neill report makes that point. As the hon. Gentleman showed in his critique of my arguments, there are many different ways of reaching a position. The clause should not remain in the Bill. One could use any number of different logical arguments to support that view.
    Mr. Brady: If the Labour party were prepared to be honest, and to campaign vigorously in a general election for a yes vote on the euro, there would be some merit in the clause because its vote in the general election would be so greatly reduced that its expenditure in the referendum campaign would be much less.
    Mr. Swayne: On fairness, I shall develop the point that I mentioned earlier about the necessity of political parties standing back from the fray. A useful example would be the referendum that we never had and should not have been denied on Maastricht. All the political parties were in favour of the treaty and they would all have spent up to their limit on promoting a yes vote. That is outrageous.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am following the hon. Gentleman's arguments with care, in so far as I am able; sometimes they turn in on themselves. It is interesting that one of the reasons for the hon. Gentleman's objection to the clause is that it does not prevent political parties from engaging in the debate. He suggests that it would perhaps be better to allow only umbrella organisations to fight a campaign, and that both sides should be equally funded.
    We considered the hon. Gentleman's view, but the difficulty is that political parties may take a stand for or against a proposition for reasons different from other organisations'. They might not therefore agree with the arguments of an umbrella organisation. For example, the British National party might have different arguments from the Conservative party's about sterling.
    Mr. Swayne: I accept that, but it applies to anyone in an umbrella organisation, not only political parties. I can accept the logic of different limits for different political parties, but it is monstrous for them to be determined by the number of votes that a political party receives in a general election, which is held on a range of issues.
    There has been much talk about a European referendum. That is quite proper because it focuses the mind. However, let us consider other possible referendums. It is conceivable that we may have a referendum on independence for Scotland or Wales. After all, the governing party recently came fourth in a by-election in the Principality. At the election for the National Assembly for Wales, the governing party lost Islwyn, the former parliamentary seat of Commissioner Neil Kinnock.
    The governing party may want to lance the boil of nationalism at some stage and reveal it for what it is by holding a single-issue referendum on independence.
    1034
    Under the proportions set out in schedule 13, £30 million would be spent on the side of keeping Wales in the Union, while the Welsh National party would spend only £500,000 against the proposition. That is monstrous. The same would apply in a Scottish referendum. The clause is manifest nonsense and should not stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Brady: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute to this interesting debate and I am pleased to follow my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), who made some important points. At one point, I was tempted to change my stance because linking the sums of money that can be spent in a referendum campaign to a general election result might affect the way in which people vote in a general election. That might have some benefits. I wavered for a moment and the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) nearly swayed me—I think unintentionally—but it is important to note that although the clause is ostensibly about fairness and striking a balance on expenditure and the conduct of a referendum, the detail does precisely the opposite in so many ways. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) pointed out, there would be no restriction on the Government's expenditure for five months of a six-month campaign.
    One can take that even further by thinking back to the admission made in the House yesterday by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the hon. Member for Leicester, East (Mr. Vaz), that considerable Government expenditure is already going into the beginnings of a campaign for British membership of the euro. The "Your Britain, Your Europe" campaign has already started, a campaign bus is going about the country and Ministers are addressing public meetings. That is all part of the softening-up exercise for a euro referendum. The Government are taking advantage of their freedom to spend public money on matters that may, over the medium term, influence the outcome of a referendum on the euro in the next few years. The failure to control Government expenditure makes the clause laughable as, apart from very close to the date of the referendum, it ultimately would not control what could be the most outrageous abuse in the whole referendum process.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but I would not want him to mislead the Committee. Is he sure that the Bill does not also deal with Government expenditure and the use of the civil service during the course of a referendum campaign?
    Mr. Brady: During the immediate course of the campaign. We do not know whether the referendum will take place in two or three years or when the Government will press the British people to give up the pound, but at this distance we can already see public expenditure on a softening-up exercise on the wider issues related to the euro. The clause does not prevent that.
    The detail of the clause is even more remarkable because the total lack of logic in the formulae that have been employed beggars belief, and I cannot see why the share of the vote at a general election should be the relevant measure for these purposes. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out that there are good reasons why that may be anything but an adequate indicator of people's views or sympathies on a referendum on a particular issue such as the euro or,

    1035
    as he said, independence for Scotland or Wales. All those issues can divide all parties in the House and the people of this country, but not in ways that are easily categorised according to voting behaviour at a general election.
    There are other ways of arriving at a suitable split of the expenditure and we might refer to opinion poll ratings on a particular issue. On the euro, 70 per cent. of the British public would favour keeping the pound. I do not say that opinion polls would be the perfect measure for such an exercise, but they would at least be immediately germane to the specific issue in the referendum, whereas the previous general election may have no relevance whatever. Hon. Members have frequently chosen the euro as a good example, and a better measure for deciding the expenditure permissible in a referendum on the euro might be the share of the vote at the previous European election. That would give a different outcome.
    In the north-west, where Labour has the large majority of parliamentary seats, it had only a minority of the vote in the European election. I strongly contend that that was a far better indication of the views of people in my region on whether we should give up the pound than was the vote at the last general election when, inevitably, many other issues were at stake.
    I referred to the Referendum party in an intervention, so I shall not deal with it at length now. It shows that there is a fundamental flaw in the Government's approach of taking a share of the general election vote as the relevant measure for these purposes. How can that possibly be the appropriate measure, if a political party expressly does not take a view on an issue that may be tested in a referendum? How can it be right that the votes of those people who voted for such a party do not count in the distribution of funds for these purposes?
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: In addition to sharing a surname with the Minister, we are on opposite sides on the Committee considering the Freedom of Information Bill. Although that is a great pleasure, it is about as far as we go, as we do not share the same views on this clause.
    Clause 111 goes to the heart of fairness in referendums. The provisions cover referendums for the United Kingdom as a whole and for parts of it. When considering the clause, it is useful to have in mind the forthcoming—sooner or later, we do not know—referendum on whether the United Kingdom should join the European single currency. That helps to highlight some of the issues. I hope that the Minister will be able to give the clarification and assurances that are required.
    Under clause 98, permitted participants are either registered parties, individuals or entities duly declared and notified under clause 99. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor) said when we debated clause 110, the nominated person is the treasurer or deputy treasurer under clause 111(2)(a)(i), who can be guilty of an offence if spending is in excess of the authorised limit.
    At the time a general election is called, the party association—or however else it is organised—is suspended, and the agent and candidate become legally responsible during the campaign. Under electoral law they have the authority to control expenditure, and they can insist that no further expenditure is incurred by the party for fear of it being counted as an electoral expense. It is not clear whether, under the Bill, that would apply to a referendum.
    1036
    I understand why there has to be a difference. By definition, a referendum is a process apart from the broad general election, when a party and candidates are seeking a mandate. A referendum is necessarily a hived-off process. I realise that the thinking behind the Bill is an attempt to find an alternative to the well-established practice, which has much precedent, of the agent and the candidate becoming legally responsible for expenditure during a general election. If a referendum is called when the House of Commons is sitting, there must be a different process.
    9.45 pm
    As has been said, there is a lack of clarity. Many of the arguments and the expenditures—although not all—will be made by political parties in any referendum campaign. What controls are provided? This is the clause in which they need to be identified. What authority is given to treasurers to establish that a political party's expenditure to support its fund raising does not constitute part of its expenditure in support of the referendum campaign, and should not therefore count in terms of the limit?
    The hiring of halls and catering facilities for fund-raising purposes might be considered to be de minimis, but we should bear in mind that most parties would seek—in general, and if they could do it—to spend to the limit in any referendum campaign. They would have the opportunity and, no doubt, the sense of duty to use all the resources at their disposal to put their case to the electorate. The Bill does not make it clear whether those expenditures would count.
    This goes to the heart of what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. It is a worrying aspect of the attempt to attract and, in this instance, retain treasurers or deputy treasurers; and, given the criminal sanctions involved, it is particularly serious. The Bill does not seem to address the problem.
    There seems to be a confusion between the duties of the Executive at the time of a referendum campaign, or when it is known that one is to take place, and the case being made in respect of the issue involved. The most graphic way of illustrating that is to imagine that a referendum is to take place on the same day as a general election. Indeed, we were given some indication that the Government had had that in mind. I hope that the Minister will explain how the clause in particular, and the Bill in general, would operate in such circumstances. I tried to read the Bill with that scenario in mind, and the result was very confusing. I hope that that does not merely reflect my own shortcomings; I genuinely believe that there are serious problems.
    Paragraph 3 of schedule 13, which is linked to clause 111, provides for circumstances in which a referendum does not apply to the whole United Kingdom. My hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) alluded to such circumstances. In the case of a referendum on electoral reform, there might well be dispute over whether Northern Ireland should be embraced. Under the Bill, however, the Secretary of State has total power to make provisions by order. That carries a grave danger, given that the Government would no doubt have an interest.
    We need reassurance about the Secretary of State's powers to make an order in relation to that type of referendum procedure, given that it would relate to only

    1037
    part of the United Kingdom, according to paragraph 3, which empowers the Secretary of State to make an order when that is the case. We need to know whether the Secretary of State's powers might carry some favourable prejudice on the part of the Government, who, no doubt, would have a view in regard to the referendum.
    Listening to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), I was reminded that the time limits prompt certain questions in relation to, for instance, a referendum on our entry into the single currency. At what point would the Government's national changeover plan expenditure qualify to be counted within the limits, or would the might of the Government's machine and of the parties that might support entry be in aggregate a built-in prejudice in favour of the argument versus those who take a different view?
    I am trying to keep my comments brief in the interests of all Members who might want to add to the debate, but those issues go to the heart of democratic legitimacy. A referendum is intended, above all other things, to confer democratic legitimacy on an issue, particularly one in relation to constitutional arrangements. My concern is that with spending limits, particularly as highlighted by Neill, and with the Government's policy as stated both in the debate on Neill and today—they will try to insist on Government neutrality—we will not end up with a fair fight.
    The clause does nothing to ensure a fair fight. It does not dispel the anxiety—irrespective of which side of the argument people are on—that the Government machine, coupled with parties in support of the Government's stated position, will invariably be able financially to outgun the opposing view. Therefore, I support the position of my party's Front-Bench team.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is the first time that I have had to follow the hon. Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien) in a debate on the Floor of the House, although we are in Committee. It is a pleasure to welcome another member of the O'Brien family to the Chamber. The O'Briens are still voting 2:1 for Labour, so the other side of the family—the black sheep of the family—will perhaps have to work a bit harder. He made a very good speech and raised some forensic points, which deserve much consideration. I should like to consider at greater length some of the finer aspects of the issues that he raised and perhaps write to him on some of them.
    The hon. Gentleman asked about the responsibilities of treasurers. He pointed out that, in a general election, the agent in the constituency and the treasurer nationally would have responsibility, so what happens when we have umbrella organisations and what happens to the parties? The treasurer would still have responsibility for the expenditure of the parties, but the umbrella organisation would have to construct its own financial set-up, including a treasurer. Then we would have to ensure that some responsibilities attach to that treasurer.
    I should like to consider further some of the hon. Gentleman's points, which may deserve some closer thought. He asked what would happen if a general election and a referendum happened on the same day. In that unlikely event, parts V and VII would operate. A registered party would need to submit separate returns
    1038
    for the campaign expenditure in part V and the campaign expenditure in part VII; but, again, the hon. Gentleman raised a number of issues. They suggest that he is right: if that happens, perhaps we will need further legislation to clarify some of the issues. I congratulate him on what was a very good, pertinent and, in many ways, most difficult speech; that is why I thought that I would get rid of his points at the start and then turn to the others.
    Interestingly, one of the most complex issues was whether we should refer to these things as referendums or referenda. I am interested that it is the Labour party that has decided to use the English version and that the Conservatives seem to be using referenda, the European version—perhaps that says something about the debate.
    For the benefit of those who may be watching us, it is likely that we may be in for a longer night than we had anticipated. Whether we will be able to vote at 10 o'clock is probably doubtful, but that will be a matter for you, Mr. Martin, and for the Committee.
    Subsection (1) of clause 111 introduces schedule 13, which provides the expenditure limits on referendum campaigns. Therefore, that short subsection constitutes the outcome that the preceding provisions of part VI are designed to support.
    The issue in this debate is whether such controls should be in place at all. I argue that the Government's position is based on principle and is not aimed at gaining any particular result from any particular referendum. We believe that if, as we have agreed, it is right and practical to control spending at major general elections, it is right and practical to control spending in referendum campaigns. As we have seen in previous clauses, it is no greater matter to establish a regime to fit a relatively brief referendum campaign than it is to activate the Representation of the People Act 1983 regime in relation to, for example, a Westminster by-election.
    Although the need to avoid an arms race perhaps does not arise so acutely in referendum campaigns as in general election campaigns, nevertheless we believe that it is desirable to ensure that the outcome of a referendum is not unduly influenced by the often substantial sums that individuals or organisations may have at their disposal. Schedule 13, which we have attached to clause 111 and are considering in the context of this debate, provides the various limits that each organisation would be expected to observe in a referendum.
    We believe that the Opposition's new clause 4 would send the wrong message to those who are considering the issues that we are debating. We think that the new clause is unnecessary and, in many ways, designed simply to give the Opposition a chance to have the Electoral Commission publish a report seeking to change the way in which referendum financing is organised.
    The new clause, in addition to the Bill's provisions, would send to the Electoral Commission the message that Parliament was so uncertain about the controls that it had established that it wanted the Electoral Commission to re-examine those controls, perhaps even before they were put into operation. The Government, of course, believe that that would be a false signal.
    The Bill gives the commission ample opportunity to comment on anything that it feels is not going well. It does not need the new clause to do that, and we do not want to send it the wrong signal. The Opposition may also feel that, as they do not like the provision in the Bill, they

    1039
    could get a better deal from the Electoral Commission. We do not want them to abuse the Electoral Commission in that way.
    We believe that it is simply undesirable to have referendums bought by those who are able to pay the largest sums. We have to seek to have some constraints. A referendum should, after all, be a decision by the people of Britain. They should decide what to do on the specific issue. However, if one side is able liberally to put its case, whereas the other side is restrained by the finances at its disposal—or if, as Conservative Members propose, there are no spending limits—we could end up with one side being able to drown out the views of the other side, deluging the public with their views and vast amounts of literature, to the exclusion of the other side of the argument.
    If we are putting a question to the British people, we have to give them a choice, a balanced debate and a demonstration of fair play in which both sides are able to put their case.
    The Opposition spokesman, the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young), made three propositions. He said that we could have equal limits, no limits or some limits. I have already dealt with the proposition of equal expenditure in reply to the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne).
    We could have specified that there shall be equal expenditure by both umbrella organisations. The problem with doing so is that the umbrella organisations may seek to express their arguments in a specific way that is not supported by some of the major political parties supporting a no or a yes campaign. The parties may wish to express their own point of view, and we think that it would be wrong to seek to prevent them from doing so. As the Neill committee argued, it would be impractical to set an equal limit on both sides, but that does not mean that we should have no limits, because that would merely enable those who can spend the most to outshout—
    It being Ten o'clock, THE CHAIRMAN left the Chair to report progress and ask leave to sit again.
    Committee report progress.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
    That, at this day's sitting, the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Kevin Hughes.]
    Question agreed to.
    Question again proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I was saying that it would be wrong to enable one side to outshout, outspend or out-propagandise the other, because the people of this country, who might be being asked to make a judgment on an important issue, would not have a balanced argument put to them.
    Having some limits would enable the debate to be balanced. Both sides would have an opportunity to put their case. The parties need not have identical limits imposed on both sides. We do not have a closed mind about the exact make-up of the limits, but our proposal would provide balance in the basic funding for the
    1040
    umbrella organisations and put limits on the other participants in the debate to ensure that everyone could participate.
    Mr. Brady rose—
    Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman has made his points and I shall try to deal with them. We are pressed for time and there are others who want to contribute on other clauses and amendments, so I shall make progress if he will allow me.
    People want to be informed but they do not want to be deluged with propaganda by the richer side, or by both sides getting involved in an arms race to see who can put the most junk mail into people's letter boxes. They want a sensible debate in which both sides have sufficient funding to ensure that they can put their arguments forward.
    We heard an important speech from the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), a member of the Neill committee. I shall deal with some of the points that he raised. In response to the White Paper, the Neill committee said:
    "As a matter of principle we do not oppose the imposition of a cap on such expenditure. Our conclusion to the contrary was largely founded on practical considerations."
    If it is practical, as the Opposition accept, to impose limits at a general election, it is practical to impose them on a referendum campaign. There are no new issues of principle.
    The intention behind part VII is to ensure fair play in a referendum. There cannot be fair play if the campaign is skewed by wealthy individuals spending millions of pounds on one side. Provided that they do not attempt too much expenditure, the best way of creating as level a playing field as we can is by imposing limits on the umbrella organisations and the various other participants.
    Conservative Members have pointed out that in the 1975 referendum campaign, Britain in Europe outspent the national referendum campaign by 20:1. The limits in the Bill restrict each umbrella group to £5 million. That is a significant improvement on the situation 25 years ago.
    The right hon. Member for South Norfolk complained about foreign intervention in a UK referendum. If all spending controls are removed, foreign nations will have free rein to spend as much as they want. The scheme set out in the Bill imposes some constraints on that. The Conservatives should bear that in mind. They want to restrict the EU and the various umbrella organisations; they want to restrict everyone except the Conservative party. Labour and the Liberal Democrats are willing to accept limits. The only people who are arguing for unlimited funding are the Conservatives.
    The right hon. Gentleman opposes limits in principle, but that was not the view taken by the Neill committee. He referred to the practical difficulties for campaigning bodies that may not be familiar with the rules, but the Neill committee recommended expenditure controls on third parties and elections. Neill acknowledged that there

    1041
    needed to be appropriate restrictions. If such restrictions are workable for third parties at elections, they are workable for referendum campaigns.
    Mr. MacGregor: I am sure that the Minister would acknowledge that that was not the position of the Neill committee in relation to referendums.
    Mr. O'Brien: I said that it was the position of the Neill committee in relation to elections. The Neill committee opposed controls in respect of referendums because it did not believe that they would be practical. I repeat Neill's conclusion:
    "As a matter of principle we do not oppose the imposition of a cap on such expenditure. Our conclusion to the contrary was largely founded on practical considerations."
    If the practical difficulties can be addressed—we believe that they can—that argument falls.
    The Conservatives are opposed to limits which ensure a balanced debate in any referendum campaign. They want to be free to buy their way to influencing the outcome of a referendum; they do not believe that there should be fair play, or that it is necessary. Our position is that limits are practical and enforceable; they enable free speech, the British tradition of fair play and both sides to have their say in a reasonably balanced way. The Tories may well defend the prerogative of the monied interest to buy the result that they favour. We want the British people to hear fully the arguments on both sides, and we trust them to make a judgment.
    Sir George Young: We have had a good debate. If I may say so, that was not the most assured and confident performance that we have seen from the Minister.
    The Committee has made good progress this afternoon. We had the emollient presence of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office. Had he been replying to this debate, I am sure we would have made even more progress. It is like being questioned by two detectives: one shines a very strong light into one's eyes and the other offers a cigarette. Sadly, the one with the cigarette disappeared during this debate, and we were left with the hard man with the bright torch.
    It is not the case, as the Minister asserted, that we want a debate in which one side can outgun the other. The Bill is likely to provide exactly the scenario that he said he did not want, for the reasons explained by my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), with the spending power outlined in the schedule.
    Let me pick up on one or two points made by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor)—the voice of Neill. They are not Conservative proposals, as the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) and the Minister keep saying. They are proposals from the unanimous report of the Neill committee. Ten people reached the conclusion that the Government's proposals are wrong and ours are right. It is misleading of the Minister to try to put them in a party political context when we are seeking to implement the recommendations of an impartial, neutral committee.
    1042
    As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said, some of the limits in the Bill will restrict spending on a decision of enormous importance to less than a company's marketing budget. That raises the issue of liberty. As my right hon. Friend said, we shall impose criminal penalties on a system that the Neill committee believes to be unworkable. A number of my hon. Friends pointed out that the formula in schedule 13 is unfair.
    The hon. Member for Hazel Grove, who is against the proposals, described them as Conservative proposals. They are not just Conservative proposals; some Labour Members supported them on Second Reading. The hon. Gentleman sawed off the branch on which he was sitting. He was in favour of limits because it is possible to get round them. That was the nub of his argument. He wanted an overall limit on all expenditure, but that is not what the Bill delivers.
    Mr. Stunell: I appreciate the right hon. Gentleman's critique, but he misquotes me. I did not say that I was against the proposals because they were Conservative proposals: I am against them because they are wrong.
    Sir George Young: The hon. Gentleman described them as Conservative proposals, but they are not. They are the recommendations of the Neill committee and of the Nairne committee before that. The proposals as they now stand will cause the Government enormous difficulties. We believe that they are indefensible in theory and undeliverable in practice, and we urge the Committee to vote against them.
    Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
    The Committee divided: Ayes 334, Noes 137.

    Division No. 80]

    [10.10 pm

    AYES

    Ainger, Nick

    Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

    Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

    Burden, Richard

    Alexander, Douglas

    Burgon, Colin

    Allen, Graham

    Bumett, John

    Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

    Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

    Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

    Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

    Ashton, Joe

    Atherton, Ms Candy

    Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

    Atkins, Charlotte

    Campbell-Savours, Dale

    Austin, John

    Caplin, Ivor

    Banks, Tony

    Casale, Roger

    Barnes, Harry

    Caton, Martin

    Barron, Kevin

    Cawsey, Ian

    Bayley, Hugh

    Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

    Beard, Nigel

    Clapham, Michael

    Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

    Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

    Beith, Rt Hon A J

    Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

    Bell, Martin (Tatton)

    Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

    Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

    Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

    Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

    Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

    Bennett, Andrew F

    Clelland, David

    Benton, Joe

    Coaker, Vemnon

    Bermingham, Gerald

    Coffey, Ms Ann

    Berry, Roger

    Cohen, Harry

    Best, Harold

    Coleman, Iain

    Blackman, Liz

    Colman, Tony

    Blears, Ms Hazel

    Connarty, Michael

    Blizzard, Bob

    Cooper, Yvette

    Borrow, David

    Corbyn, Jeremy

    Bradshaw, Ben

    Corston, Jean

    Brinton, Mrs Helen

    Cotter, Brian

    Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

    Cousins, Jim

    Browne, Desmond

    Cox, Tom

    1043

    Cranston, Ross

    Hope, Phil

    Crausby, David

    Hopkins, Kelvin

    Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

    Howells, Dr Kim

    Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

    Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

    Cummings, John

    Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

    Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

    Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

    Humble, Mrs Joan

    Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

    Iddon, Dr Brian

    Dalyell, Tam

    Illsley, Eric

    Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

    Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

    Darvill, Keith

    Jamieson, David

    Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

    Jenkins, Brian

    Davidson, Ian

    Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

    Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

    Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

    Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

    Dawson, Hilton

    Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

    Dismore, Andrew

    Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

    Dobbin, Jim

    Donohoe, Brian H

    Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

    Doran, Frank

    Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

    Dowd, Jim

    Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

    Drew, David

    Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

    Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

    Keeble, Ms Sally

    Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

    Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

    Edwards, Huw

    Kemp, Fraser

    Efford, Clive

    Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

    Ellman, Mrs Louise

    Kidney, David

    Ennis, Jeff

    Kilfoyle, Peter

    Etherington, Bill

    King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

    Feam, Ronnie

    Kumar, Dr Ashok

    Field, Rt Hon Frank

    Ladyman, Dr Stephen

    Fisher, Mark

    Laxton, Bob

    Fitzpatrick, Jim

    Lepper, David

    Fitzsimons, Loma

    Leslie, Christopher

    Flint, Caroline

    Levitt, Tom

    Flynn, Paul

    Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

    Follett, Barbara

    Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

    Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

    Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

    Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

    Linton, Martin

    Foulkes, George

    Livsey, Richard

    Fyfe, Maria

    Llwyd, Elfyn

    Gapes, Mike

    Lock, David

    Gardiner, Barry

    Love, Andrew

    George, Andrew (St Ives)

    McAvoy, Thomas

    George, Bruce (Walsall S)

    McCafferty, Ms Chris

    Gerrard, Neil

    McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

    Gibson, Dr Ian

    Gilroy, Mrs Linda

    McDonagh, Siobhain

    Godman, Dr Norman A

    Macdonald, Calum

    Godsiff, Roger

    McDonnell, John

    Goggins, Paul

    McGuire, Mrs Anne

    Golding, Mrs Llin

    McIsaac, Shona

    Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

    McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

    Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

    Mackinlay, Andrew

    Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

    McNamara, Kevin

    Grocott, Bruce

    McNulty, Tony

    Grogan, John

    MacShane, Denis

    Gunnell, John

    Mactaggart, Fiona

    Hain, Peter

    McWalter, Tony

    Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

    McWilliam, John

    Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

    Mahon, Mrs Alice

    Hanson, David

    Mallaber, Judy

    Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

    Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

    Heal, Mrs Sylvia

    Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

    Healey, John

    Marshall, David (Shettleston)

    Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

    Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

    Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

    Marshall-Andrews, Robert

    Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

    Martlew, Eric

    Hepburn, Stephen

    Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

    Heppell, John

    Meale, Alan

    Hesford, Stephen

    Merron, Gillian

    Hewitt, Ms Patricia

    Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

    Hill, Keith

    Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

    Hodge, Ms Margaret

    Miller, Andrew

    Hoey, Kate

    Moffatt, Laura

    Hood, Jimmy

    Moonie, Dr Lewis

    1044

    Moore, Michael

    Smith, Angela (Basildon)

    Moran, Ms Margaret

    Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

    Morley, Elliot

    Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

    Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

    Smith, John (Glamorgan)

    Mountford, Kali

    Snape, Peter

    Mudie, George

    Southworth, Ms Helen

    Mullin, Chris

    Spellar, John

    Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

    Squire, Ms Rachel

    Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

    Starkey, Dr Phyllis

    Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

    Steinberg, Gerry

    Naysmith, Dr Doug

    Stevenson, George

    Norris, Dan

    Stewart, David (Inverness E)

    O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

    Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

    O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

    Stinchcombe, Paul

    O'Hara, Eddie

    Stoate, Dr Howard

    O'Neill, Martin

    Straw, Rt Hon Jack

    Organ, Mrs Diana

    Stuart, Ms Gisela

    Pearson, Ian

    Stunell, Andrew

    Pendry, Tom

    Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

    Pickthall, Colin

    Pike, Peter L

    Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

    Plaskitt, James

    Taylor, David (NW Leics)

    Pollard, Kerry

    Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

    Pond, Chris

    Temple-Morris, Peter

    Pope, Greg

    Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

    Pound, Stephen

    Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

    Powell, Sir Raymond

    Timms, Stephen

    Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

    Tipping, Paddy

    Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

    Todd, Mark

    Prescott, Rt Hon John

    Tonge, Dr Jenny

    Primarolo, Dawn

    Touhig, Don

    Prosser, Gwyn

    Trickett, Jon

    Purchase, Ken

    Truswell, Paul

    Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

    Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

    Rammell, Bill

    Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

    Rapson, Syd

    Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

    Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

    Turner, Neil (Wigan)

    Twigg, Derek (Halton)

    Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

    Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

    Rendel, David

    Tyler, Paul

    Roche, Mrs Barbara

    Tynan, Bill

    Rogers, Allan

    Vis, Dr Rudi

    Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

    Walley, Ms Joan

    Rooney, Terry

    Ward, Ms Claire

    Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

    Wareing, Robert N

    Rowlands, Ted

    Webb, Steven

    Roy, Frank

    Welsh, Andrew

    Ruddock, Joan

    White, Brian

    Russell, Bob (Colchester)

    Whitehead, Dr Alan

    Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

    Wicks, Malcolm

    Ryan, Ms Joan

    Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

    Salter, Martin

    Sanders, Adrian

    Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

    Sarwar, Mohammad

    Willis, Phil

    Savidge, Malcolm

    Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

    Sawford, Phil

    Wise, Audrey

    Shaw, Jonathan

    Woolas, Phil

    Sheerman, Barry

    Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

    Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

    Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

    Shipley, Ms Debra

    Wyatt, Derek

    Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

    Singh, Marsha

    Tellers for the Ayes:

    Skinner, Dennis

    Mr. Mike Hall and

    Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

    Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

    NOES

    Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

    Blunt, Crispin

    Amess, David

    Body, Sir Richard

    Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

    Boswell, Tim

    Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

    Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

    Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

    Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

    Baldry, Tony

    Brady, Graham

    Beggs, Roy

    Brazier, Julian

    Bercow, John

    Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

    Beresford, Sir Paul

    Browning, Mrs Angela

    1045

    Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

    Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

    Burns, Simon

    Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

    Butterfill, John

    Loughton, Tim

    Cash, William

    Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

    Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

    MacGregor, Rt Hon John

    McIntosh, Miss Anne

    Chope, Christopher

    MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

    Clappison, James

    Maclean, Rt Hon David

    Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

    McLoughlin, Patrick

    Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

    Madel, Sir David

    Collins, Tim

    Malins, Humfrey

    Colvin, Michael

    Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

    Cormack, Sir Patrick

    May, Mrs Theresa

    Cran, James

    Moss, Malcolm

    Curry, Rt Hon David

    Nicholls, Patrick

    Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

    Norman, Archie

    Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

    O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

    Day, Stephen

    Ottaway, Richard

    Donaldson, Jeffrey

    Page, Richard

    Duncan, Alan

    Paice, James

    Duncan Smith, Iain

    Paterson, Owen

    Evans, Nigel

    Pickles, Eric

    Faber, David

    Randall, John

    Fabricant, Michael

    Redwood, Rt Hon John

    Fallon, Michael

    Robertson, Laurence

    Flight, Howard

    Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

    Forth, Rt Hon Eric

    Ross, William (E Lond'y)

    Fox, Dr Liam

    Ruffley, David

    Fraser, Christopher

    St Aubyn, Nick

    Gale, Roger

    Sayeed, Jonathan

    Garnier, Edward

    Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

    Gibb, Nick

    Soames, Nicholas

    Gill, Christopher

    Spelman, Mrs Caroline

    Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

    Spicer, Sir Michael

    Gorman, Mrs Teresa

    Spring, Richard

    Gray, James

    Steen, Anthony

    Green, Damian

    Streeter, Gary

    Greenway, John

    Swayne, Desmond

    Grieve, Dominic

    Syms, Robert

    Tapsell, Sir Peter

    Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

    Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

    Hammond, Philip

    Taylor, John M (Solihull)

    Hawkins, Nick

    Taylor, Sir Teddy

    Hayes, John

    Townend, John

    Heald, Oliver

    Tredinnk, David

    Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

    Trend, Michael

    Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

    Tyrie, Andrew

    Horam, John

    Walter, Robert

    Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

    Wardle, Charles

    Hunter, Andrew

    Whitney, Sir Raymond

    Jack, Rt Hon Michael

    Whittingdale, John

    Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

    Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

    Jenkin, Bemard

    Wilkinson, John

    Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

    Willetts, David

    Wilshire, David

    Key, Robert

    Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

    Kirkbride, Miss Julie

    Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

    Lait, Mrs Jacqui

    Yeo, Tim

    Lansley, Andrew

    Young, Rt Hon Sir George

    Leigh, Edward

    Letwin, Oliver

    Tellers for the Noes:

    Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

    Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

    Lidington, David

    Mr. Peter Luff.

    Question accordingly agreed to.
    Clause 111 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule 13 agreed to.

  Clause 112

    CONTROL OF DONATIONS TO PERMITTED PARTICIPANTS
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Walter: Clause 112 is incredibly short; it immediately refers to schedule 14, which is the next item
    1046
    on the selection list. It is impossible to consider clause 112 without a fairly detailed reference to schedule 14, so I apologise in advance if I stray into what might be a debate on the next schedule.
    Schedule 14 states that it
    "has effect for controlling donations to permitted participants other than registered parties."
    When we read further into the schedule, it feels as though we are going around in a circle. Clause 112, taken with schedule 14, makes nonsense of this part of the Bill.
    Part II of the schedule is headed "Controls on Donations". It states:
    "A relevant donation received by a permitted participant must not be accepted by the permitted participant if … the person by whom the donation would be made is not, at the time of its receipt by the permitted participant, a permissible donor falling within section 48(2)."
    We have referred to clause 48(2) at length in our deliberations. It states that a permissible donor is
    "an individual registered in an electoral register; a company … registered under the Companies Act 1985 or the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1986, and … incorporated within the European Union; a registered party; a trade union … a friendly society … any other unincorporated association of two or more persons which carries on … activities wholly or mainly in the United Kingdom and whose main office is there".
    Earlier provisions in the measure create a procedure whereby a permitted participant would not be eligible to be a permissible donor. It is okay for a foreigner, a foreign company or a foreign association to be a permitted participant in a referendum campaign, but heaven forbid that any of them should make a contribution to any other permitted participant because that would be an impermissible donation.
    The Government need to reconsider clause 112 and schedule 14, because they make nonsense of this part of the Bill. They would create the ridiculous situation whereby foreigners could participate in referendum campaigns for whatever reason—earlier the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office told us that it is because of the European convention on human rights—but could not write out a cheque to other permitted participants, even if those permitted participants were themselves foreigners. We are in a tangle. I suggest to the Ministers that clause 112, and schedule 14 which hangs on it, should be reconsidered and even withdrawn.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I have considered the points made by the hon. Member for North Dorset (Mr. Walter). The purpose of clause 112—like that of clause 111, but more so—is simply to introduce the schedule. The schedule controls donations to referendum campaign groups in much the same way that part IV of the Bill controls donations to registered parties. Those controls are important for the way in which campaigns are to be undertaken. They operate reasonably in general election campaigns and it is possible to apply them in referendum campaigns.
    There is a difference between a foreign national spending money in his name and making a donation to a political party or to another player in a referendum. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office explained, article 10 of the European convention on human rights would preclude undue restrictions on the amount that a person may spend to put forward his views. Such considerations do not apply to donations.

    1047
    We want to apply regulation and a fair degree of control where we can. Where that is not possible because of article 10, we have chosen not to do so. That seems straightforward and reasonable. We do not need to withdraw the clause or the schedule.
    10.30 pm
    The hon. Gentleman makes essentially a technical point about the drafting. I shall consider it further, but I do not see any other way that we could have drafted the clause. He makes a not unreasonable point, and I shall reflect on it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 112 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
    Schedule 14 agreed to.
    Clauses 113 to 117 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 118

    RESTRICTION ON PUBLICATION ETC. OF PROMOTIONAL MATERIAL BY CENTRAL AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT ETC.
    Mr. Grieve: I beg to move amendment No. 54, in page 72, line 41, leave out "relevant" and insert "referendum".
    The First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 56, in page 73, line 10, leave out from "poll" to end of line 11.
    No. 55, in page 73, leave out lines 19 and 20.
    No. 57, in page 73, line 20, at end add—
    '(5)(a) no civil servant or agency appointed by Government acting in an official capacity shall advocate any argument for or against any particular answer to any question in a referendum.
    (b) in this subsection the term "civil servant" includes any person employed as a special adviser.'.
    Mr. Grieve: We now come to an important clause that concerns the control of publications during a referendum. As it is drafted, it does not appear to reflect what Lord Neill said on the subject in his report.
    Our amendments seek to rectify an omission and the Government's failure properly to reflect Lord Neill's recommendations. The starting point must be what the Neill committee said. As the Minister will be aware, it was concerned about the role of Government in the course of a referendum campaign. To put it bluntly, its view of the role that the Government played in the Welsh referendum was not complimentary. Given the comments about the referendum in Northern Ireland, I remind the Minister that it had equal anxieties about how the Good Friday agreement referendum was conducted.
    I draw attention to the salient points on this subject in the Neill report. It says:
    "Another important question concerns the role of the government of the day during a referendum campaign, especially when it will itself have called the referendum and will almost certainly have publicly declared a preference regarding the outcome. Our view is straightforward. We believe it is perfectly appropriate for the government of the day to state its view and for members of the Government to campaign vigorously during referendum campaigns, just as they do during general election campaigns. But we also believe that, just as in general election campaigns, neither taxpayers' money nor the permanent government machine—civil servants,
    1048
    official cars, the Government Information Service, and so forth—should be used to promote the interests of the Government side of the argument. In other words, referendum campaigns should be treated for these purposes in every way as though they were general election campaigns."
    Mr. Tipping: It would help if the hon. Gentleman gave the reference.
    Mr. Grieve: I apologise to the Minister. I should have thought that by now he would be very familiar with Lord Neill's report, but I accept that other members of the Committee may not be. I refer the Minister to paragraph 12.41.
    As I pointed out, the report then discourses on past referendums with a critique that is not complimentary to Government roles. In particular, paragraph 12.43 criticises the conduct of the referendum on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland, and contains quotations from those who felt that they were being emotionally blackmailed by the way in which the Government involved themselves and the government machine in it.
    Lord Neill concludes in paragraph 12.44:
    "We believe that it is extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, for the government of the day to offer purely objective and factual information in the course of a referendum campaign, especially when, as will usually be the case, itself it is a party to the campaign. We believe governments should not participate in referendum campaigns in this manner, just as it would be thought to be wholly inappropriate during a general election campaign for the government to print and distribute, at the taxpayer's expense, literature setting out government policy."
    Recommendation 89 says:
    "The government of the day in future referendums should, as a government, remain neutral and should not distribute at public expense literature, even purportedly 'factual' literature, setting out or otherwise promoting its case."
    With that in mind we turn to clause 118. It certainly makes a few concessions towards Lord Neill's recommendations, but the single most important and glaring omission is the identification of the relevant period of a referendum as merely the last 28 days of the campaign. That is not in the spirit of what Lord Neill intended.
    As the Minister himself pointed out, there will be a minimum of 10 weeks—the period may be longer in certain circumstances—between the beginning of the referendum period and the date when the referendum takes place. It seems to us that that is the entire referendum period. It is wrong to say that the last 28 days of that period can somehow be separated from the rest.
    The Government may have a role in initiating the referendum and putting into statute the necessary order or Bill for it to take place. Once that has been done, there should be an end to Government propaganda seeking a particular outcome. As I said earlier, one of the difficulties, which I do not necessarily attribute to this Government, is that there is ample evidence that referendums have in the past been used as instruments of tyranny, often by semi-tyrannical Governments of a populist bent.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Or really tyrannical Governments.
    Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend. I remember studying Napoleon III at university. I sometimes think that

    1049
    the Government, above all the Prime Minister, resemble Napoleon III more every day. His reign ended in disaster, but he maintained a populist Government by a series of referendum fixes that covered what was, in effect, his poor government. There have to be rules to make sure that there is proper, adequate debate when referendums occur.
    Amendment No. 54 would change the "relevant" period to the "referendum" period, being the entire period within which the referendum will be taking place. I will be interested to hear from the Minister why the Government feel that only the last 28 days should be counted.
    Mr. Bercow: That is when the browbeating will be done.
    Mr. Grieve: Indeed it will, and I find it extraordinary that it will take place during the period in which the commission will be examining whether an organisation is favoured.
    The party that is opposing the Government will always be at a disadvantage because only in the last 28 days can it be up and running as a separate umbrella organisation of equal status to those that are arguing the Government's case. In those circumstances, it is particularly important that the entire referendum period should be covered.
    Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend will be as familiar as I am with the debate on 10 April 1975, in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) raised precisely the same point in debating the timetable of the 1975 referendum and the opportunities that hon. Members who were active in that campaign would have to participate in that debate. We are witnessing a repetition of the concerns expressed so sagely on that occasion.
    Mr. Grieve: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The situation is a little bizarre. We are setting up a framework that is designed to iron out problems that have caused public disquiet, yet on this critical issue we are failing to implement Lord Neill's recommendations fully. It is difficult to escape the conclusion—the Minister knows that in Committee we sought to take a non-partisan view of the matter—that the Government are introducing the provision only because they see some advantage from it. It is difficult to envisage why Lord Neill's proposals would not be implemented in full if the Government were neutral in their approach.
    I shall not comment on amendment No. 16. Suffice it to say that it again addresses the funding problem concerning European Union institutions and foreign Governments. I shall be interested in the Minister's comments because my understanding is—[HON. MEMBERS: "It has not been selected for debate."] I apologise. The amendment is relevant, although I accept that the subject was dealt with. I shall move on.
    Amendment No. 56 relates to a most curious state of affairs. Certain activities are prohibited during the relevant period, whether it be the relevant period as the Minister identifies it or the referendum period, as I would prefer it. One activity that is not prohibited is the issue of press notices by Government. How long is a piece of string? What is intended? Once one accepts that press
    1050
    notices that are relevant to the referendum may be issued, it is difficult to see how one is not preventing the possibility of Governments issuing propaganda on the question of the referendum result.
    Before I am prepared to accept this provision, I shall need much reassurance from the Minister that the Government do not intend to create a loophole to enable them to put their view across. In those circumstances, 1 hope that he will give a positive response to its proposed deletion. I do not understand why the provision is included, unless there is some ulterior motive.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Bercow: Can my hon. Friend confirm that line 11 on page 73 directly contradicts line 39 on page 72? Is it not extraordinary that in the space of only 16 lines, the Government have contradicted themselves? Does he agree that the purpose of the press releases that the Government will be entitled to issue is to influence the result? Clearly, they are not supposed to be about the merits of basket weaving or about the weather forecast.
    Mr. Grieve: I try to be fair to the Government—
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Do not try too hard.
    Mr. Grieve: I shall not try too hard, but I have always tried to be fair to the Government in Committee, and I intend to continue.
    I accept that a press notice covering, for instance, the formalities of the referendum may be perfectly in order. The times at which the polls will open and close are suitable, neutral matters for the Government to deal with. After all, they must implement and run the referendum, subject to the input of the Electoral Commission. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) said, I do not see why press notices would be specified at all, except to provide a loophole. A press notice designed to encourage voting at a referendum would clearly be prohibited. I want to identify, with the Minister, what is intended in the clause.
    Mr. Stunell: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer of sound repute. Can he offer the Committee a legal definition of a press notice? Does he agree that interpretation of the provision is open-ended?
    Mr. Grieve: I agree. That is precisely why I want to press the Minister. If he can satisfy me, I shall be reassured, but, having read the Bill, I am not happy with it, or I should not have tabled the amendment.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: May I try to help my hon. Friend? Is he not, like all Opposition Members, deeply suspicious of press notices? We seem to have a Government who govern by press briefings, formal or informal, and press notices. Is not that the real loophole?
    Mr. Grieve: I agree. As matters stand, we might describe it as the Alastair Campbell loophole. I do not want such a loophole in the Bill, and I want it plugged now, rather than having serious disagreements with the Government later. As the Minister rightly says, this is a framework Bill designed to command widespread public acceptance.

    1051
    Amendment No. 55 would delete "the relevant period", which is defined as 28 days. As I explained, we want Government propaganda to be prohibited during the entire referendum period.
    Amendment No. 57 deals with the role of the civil service in the course of a referendum campaign and prohibits civil servants providing arguments for or against any answer to a referendum question. I accept that subsection (2) provides that
    "any Minister of the Crown, government department or local authority"
    shall not publish, display or distribute information, but that does not go far enough.
    We are particularly concerned about the role of special advisers, who have always been a hybrid entity and whose activities in government are bringing them into increasing disrepute for receiving the taxpayers' money, but doing their political masters' bidding.
    Mr. Mike Hall: What about your lot?
    Mr. Grieve: The hon. Gentleman makes a reference to political advisers under previous Governments. He cannot escape the fact that the number of political advisers has increased exponentially under this Government. They are present in all Departments and their role, activities and failure to follow civil service rules have been questioned time and again by the press. I therefore recommend him not to pursue that argument from a sedentary or any other position.
    Mr. Bercow: I endorse the thrust of my hon. Friend's comments. Does he agree that it is important that our amendment is not only intellectually robust—it is—but capable of being monitored and enforced? Does he accept that to enforce the restriction on special advisers, it will be necessary to put them all on a slow boat to China during any referendum campaign under a Labour Government?
    Mr. Grieve: I am not sure whether exile to China is necessary; the amendments would do the job adequately.
    I hope that the Bill will be a monument to the Government and that it will endure well beyond the time when the electorate throw out the Labour Government. After that, when I confidently believe that a Conservative Government will be in office, the rules that the amendment proposes would fetter that Government as effectively as today's Labour Government. That is the principal justification for ensuring that the Bill is neutral and fair, and protects the liberty of the people.
    Mr. Owen Paterson: My hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) referred to special advisers' travel plans. Does my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) know that the travel bill for special advisers has increased by £500,000 in the past year?
    The First Deputy Chairman: Order. We are straying from the amendment.
    Mr. Grieve: I want to ensure that the referendum will be regarded as having taken place in a fair environment. The controls on publications under clause 118 are
    1052
    inadequate and do not reflect Lord Neill's report. I hope that, in the spirit of co-operation that has prevailed in our proceedings, the Minister will give the amendments special consideration. If he believes that I have made valid points, I hope that he will provide some reassurance, as he has done so often in the past, that they will be properly considered.
    Sir Michael Spicer: The amendments and short debate are significant because the Government are not neutral in any referendum. That is crucial. A referendum on the single currency would never take place if the Government did not decide that they wanted to join it and therefore wished to put their view to the test. The Government are perhaps the major participant in such circumstances. It is therefore of paramount importance that they are on one side in a campaign.
    Many of us have constantly stressed that the Bill is inadequate because it gives the Secretary of State too many powers and the commission too few. We have therefore been especially pleased to hear Ministers' constant assurances, especially those of the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, who was described as the man who gives away the cigarettes. He has been especially good at saying that he will consider several of our suggestions to place the Government at one remove from managing the campaigns or the events that lead up to them.
    The amendment is crucial, because if the Secretary of State is to be responsible for ensuring neutrality, setting the questions and all matters that significantly affect the campaign—even some funding matters—it is appalling that the Government should simultaneously be allowed to campaign until 28 days before the referendum. The amendment is a bit generous and 10 weeks is an extremely brief period in which to limit the Government's campaigning abilities, although it is certainly better than 28 days.
    I am concerned even about a 10-week period, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) said, this Government above all have been shameless in the way that they use propaganda to further their particular cause. A recent example is the changeover plan, which they are already using as an instrument for anticipating the referendum on the single currency. They are pumping money into blatant propaganda that often appears in schools and places where they hope to influence people who will vote in a referendum in a few years' time.
    We have only to read the pure party political propaganda that appears throughout the intergovernmental conference White Paper, which was published this week, to emphasise our concern that this Government above all cannot be allowed to manage the conduct of the referendum campaign in a so-called neutral way through the Secretary of State when they are also allowed to campaign right up to the last minute.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does my hon. Friend agree that the propaganda in our schools to which he referred comes not only from Government circles, but direct from the European Union, albeit that it is paid for in part by our contribution to the EU? It comes from two different sources.
    Sir Michael Spicer: I agree with my hon. Friend, which is why it would be nice to prevent the European

    1053
    Union from campaigning or influencing the campaign directly. We tried to introduce an amendment to that effect, but the nice guy who gives out the cigarettes assured us that that would be counterproductive. I think he meant that no one believes or trusts the EU so its intervention would be counter-productive, but I do not take that view. The money would be pumped in surreptitiously through third parties—we know that that is already being done. The Government should accept an amendment if they want to be fair and clear cut. Even at this late stage, I hope that they will see the force of our argument.
    The amendment is related to the Government's involvement and I fully support my Front Benchers, although I would prefer an even wider restriction, as 10 weeks is a bit close to the event. However, it is better than 28 days, which is scandalously close given that the Government will manage large chunks of the referendum.
    Mr. Stunell: It is a pity that a comparatively good case has been spoiled by some of the arguments. There are good reasons for challenging part of the clause and I want to do that, but we should not get too precious about the European referendum. I understand how important it is to Conservative Members, but whatever limits we introduce, those who want to promote a particular view will still do so in government or in opposition. If there are complaints that the European Union is sending literature to schools, there might equally be complaints that the Democracy Movement is sending literature to schools as well.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: It is not.
    Mr. Stunell: If the Democracy Movement is not sending literature to schools, it should start doing so and stop sending post cards to me. We cannot make Britain a politics-free zone in which one is not allowed to debate issues or attempt to influence views.
    Dr. Lewis: The only snag is that a provision in the Education Acts prohibits the indoctrination of children in schools with partisan politics on politically controversial issues. If such literature is being sent to schools, it is breaking the existing law.
    11 pm
    Mr. Stunell: I rest my case. There is scope for educational material for and against a particular point of view being sent to schools. What use they make of it is another matter.
    Given some of the comments that have been made, some hon. Members would obviously not like the subject of Europe to be discussed in any pub, school or workplace in the land, and believe that anyone who tries to do so should be stopped. They may want that, but this is not the Bill to achieve it.
    I want to focus more precisely on what the clause does and does not do. I can make common cause with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) in some respects. When considering the impact of amendment No. 56 and its deletion of press notices from exempt materials that public bodies can distribute, what does the Minister believe a court would consider to be a press notice? Is it
    1054
    any piece of literature with the words "press notice" at the top? Is it a self-defining document? If so, is he happy with that? If there is some other definition of a press notice, will he put it on the record so that we know what it is? It is unsatisfactory to leave that loophole, especially in its present form. I am not a lawyer, but I do not think that there is a legal definition of a press notice. If there is one that does not arise from case law, it should be clearly stated on the record.
    The general issue of when the moratorium on public bodies' advocacy of a particular course of action should start is complex. I would not be averse to an extension of the 28 days. The amendment does not do that with enough accuracy and certainty. There needs to be a date beyond which it is not proper for public bodies to disseminate such material. Four weeks is a short time, but it may not be too short. It could be from the date at which the umbrella organisations were approved by the Electoral Commission or some other prior date that was clear and gave certainty. I would be interested to hear from the Minister what could be achieved.
    I come part way with the hon. Member for Beaconsfield on bringing forward the 28-day deadline. I am sympathetic to that view, but I do not think that his amendment quite achieves it. However, I am not with him on the political restrictions on civil servants. It is wrong for us to impose political restrictions on civil servants during referendums additional to those that are already in force. For better or for worse, Parliament has provided for the role of political advisers and their ability to operate under substantially more relaxed guidelines than those for civil servants in general in relation to political activity.
    Mr. Grieve: I accept that the guidelines are more relaxed, but how are they to be exercised? Does the hon. Gentleman contemplate that special advisers should be allowed to make use of the civil service machinery for the dissemination of their views—which is what they are currently able to do during a referendum?
    Mr. Stunell: I am not entirely sure that the case has been made that that is different from civil servants exercising their views prior to a vote in the House on, say, a reduction in disability benefits, when quite clearly they are operating on behalf of the Government to develop public opinion and opinion in the House. I am not clear that there is a sufficient distinction that would necessitate those guidelines being varied, in particular for referendum campaigns.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Does the hon. Gentleman not differentiate between a vote in the House by Members of Parliament who have been elected to decide issues, and an election—a referendum—outside? Surely it is wrong for taxpayers' money to be used to influence people in the country. I understand its being used for that purpose in the House, but surely it should not be used for that purpose in the country, in a referendum.
    Mr. Stunell: Some interesting points are emerging. Perhaps they should feature in a slightly different debate about what range of relaxations should be available to political advisers. There is nothing to stop a political adviser in any Department making comments in the four, or eight, weeks leading up to a local election campaign,

    1055
    or a Scottish Parliament campaign, or a Welsh Assembly campaign—or, even more to the point, a London mayoral campaign.
    At present, there is no such restriction, although it might be argued that there should be. I am not convinced that this is such a special case that we should treat it as such at this stage. There may be something to be said for the argument that is being advanced, but I do not think that we should load the issue simply because we do not want a particular view to be advanced about Europe.
    Mr. Bercow: I am trying intently to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he saying that Ministers should be restricted in terms of their use of Government facilities and resources during the 28-day period of a referendum campaign, but that their political advisers should not be so restricted? That is an extraordinary proposition.
    Mr. Stunell: It would be extraordinary if it were advanced, but I am not advancing it. Nothing in the Bill, or in precedent, prevents Ministers, in their party political role, from advocating a particular outcome during a referendum campaign. I do not see what point the hon. Gentleman is making, but if he concentrates even more intently on my argument, I am sure that he will be with me in the end.
    The Government have a case to answer on the issue of constraining the output of public bodies. Press notices are certainly a weak link. I also think that we should consider whether the 28-day moratorium should be extended, and I would like to hear the Minister's view.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I was fortunate enough to be on the Standing Committee that dealt with other parts of the Bill. I congratulate the Government on having reserved the most controversial parts for the Floor of the House.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman should be praising his hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench.
    Dr. Lewis: I am delighted. That accords far better with my thesis, which is that the Government's proposals are incredibly unfair—which is why I thought it strange that they were willing to give this part of the Bill a wider and more public airing. Now that I have been informed that my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench are responsible, I am even happier to congratulate them on taking the opportunity to bring these abuses more clearly to the attention of the public.
    I am astonished at the difference in the atmosphere—the difference between the relative consensus on uncontroversial matters in the Standing Committee, and what is being proposed here. I well remember when the Home Secretary himself, on July 1997 in the House, compared Neill's recommendations with the Government's proposed responses to them. The one issue on which I felt it incumbent on me to intervene at the time was this very question of the 28-day limit on Government propaganda in favour of one side of the argument on a future referendum issue.
    Clearly, the Neill committee was recommending that the Government should keep their nose out of referendum campaigns. Equally clearly, the Government want to observe only the tiniest part of the letter of that
    1056
    recommendation, while wholly ignoring the spirit of it. In any future referendum, whatever the topic, while Labour are in government, they intend to be able to spend as much public money as they like for weeks and months leading up to the crucial vote and to stop doing so a mere 28 days before the votes are cast. If it is wrong that Governments should be able to spend a great deal of public money during the last 28 days, it is equally wrong that they should be able to spend great quantities of public money for significantly longer periods, up to that tiny window of abstention just before the vote is cast.
    Equally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) points out, why should it be the case that, throughout even that 28-day period, when even the Government are prepared to be a little abstemious in the amount of propaganda that they pump out to try to skew the referendum result, they are still entitled to put the words "press notice" on any further propaganda that they wish to issue, exploiting the loophole in the clause to persist pumping out their message right up to polling day, as far as I can see?
    The point has been made: just as the use of public money to pump out literature is wrong, so the use of public money to pay civil servants to do the Government's partisan campaigning is wrong. I am concerned about the way in which the Government are trying to turn what was meant to be the cleaning-up of partisan distortions of referendum campaigns into something that is of advantage to the Government of the day.
    Mr. Hayes: Contrary to the suggestion from the hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell), is not the debate a fine opportunity to tighten up and straighten out the business of special advisers, about whom there is growing concern in terms of their political involvement? That would apply to a Government of any political persuasion. Is not the debate an ideal opportunity to assuage those concerns and fears by defining more clearly their role and limiting their involvement in such a political process?
    Dr. Lewis: It is not only that. The point has been well made by the Conservative Front-Bench team that the matter will affect any future Government. It is like the introduction of a new weapon into warfare, even if it is only political warfare: people should realise what it will be like when that weapon is turned on them and the roles are reversed.
    One day, roles will be reversed. I hope still to be in this place when that happens. I will remember the current debate and how the Government have conducted themselves when we hear the squeals of outrage from Labour Members on the Opposition Benches as we seek in government to exploit the very loopholes that they are wrongly building into the Bill. Rather than have such tit-for-tat abuse of the system, such mutual rejection of the spirit of the Neill proposals, I appeal to the Minister to observe on the Floor of the House the same spirit of compromise, consensus and fairness that he has observed elsewhere and at least to promise that, if we do not divide the Committee tonight, he will revisit the matter on Report and introduce more satisfactory proposals.
    Mr. Paterson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Martin, for calling me in what is an important debate.

    1057
    If the clause stands, we will have an intolerable situation, given the extraordinary increase in the number of special advisers, whose main role is to pump out Government propaganda.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Party propaganda.
    Mr. Paterson: Exactly. They are pumping out party propaganda and Government propaganda—which, in a referendum, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer) said, will be the same thing. The Government will not initiate a referendum campaign if they do not want to win it.
    11.15 pm
    Before Christmas, I tabled a parliamentary question on the number of special advisers, and was told that, since the Government came to power, an extra 68 have been hired. However, in a previous debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie) corrected me on that figure, and said that the number of additional advisers had risen to 77, who are costing the taxpayer an extra £1.8 million annually. In total, Government special advisers are costing the taxpayer about £3.9 million. As I said in an earlier intervention, their travel alone costs £500,000.
    Special advisers are there not for nothing, but to put across the Government point of view. How much are the Government spending on publicity? Perhaps we should examine the three Departments that would be affected in a referendum campaign. Since May 1997, total publicity spending by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has been £5,933,637, of which £44,067.39 has been specifically dedicated to spending on press releases. What about websites? The Department spent £554,097 on them. The Department spent £4,818,211 on something called "extra publicity". What is that? Did it have something to do with press releases? A cool £464,628 was spent on media advertising.
    The Minister will have to tell us how that money for publicity is being spent. He will also have to tell us how the clause will operate. It would be intolerable if the sums that I have described were spent legally in a referendum by the Government, whereas—as clause 118 currently provides—those who oppose the Government in that contest would not have access to such funds.
    Last year, the Scotland Office conducted a referendum. Since May 1999, its total spending on publicity has been £3.4 million—of which £119,000 was spent on press releases—whereas it has spent £808,000 on websites and £2.5 million on media advertising. Those are enormous sums, and they are at the disposal of politically dedicated outsiders who were brought in by the Government with only one purpose: to propagate the Government's point of view. That is what they will be doing in a referendum if clause 118 is not amended.
    Mr. Bercow: Does my hon. Friend agree that any Government reckless enough to want permanently to abandon the national currency of an independent nation is inevitably prepared to resort to virtually any and every
    1058
    technique to get the result that they want? Is not the important point that legislation should protect the rest of us from those certifiable tendencies?
    Mr. Paterson: As usual, my hon. Friend makes the most pertinent observation. The Government already, before a referendum, have the material means in their hands—they have taken on the personnel and have extraordinarily large sums—to propagate their own point of view. When the campaign comes, they will have not only the motive, but the means to put forward their view. Those who are opposed to the Government's position in the referendum will not only be short of means, but will be prevented, by an unamended clause 118, from competing with the Government.
    Mr. Hayes: The evidence is clear. Neill examined the matter quite carefully, particularly the conduct of the referendum on the Good Friday agreement in Northern Ireland. Regardless of what one thinks of the Good Friday agreement—I think that most hon. Members support it wholeheartedly—Neill specifically criticises the Government for sending out copies of the agreement to every household, but not providing
    "comparable provision—by way of core funding or anything else—for the opposition side."
    The evidence is such that Governments, when they are completely committed to a case—to which hon. Members on both sides of the House may be committed—will push that case to its limits and not play an entirely straight bat.
    Mr. Paterson: That was my next point. Since May 1997, the Northern Ireland Office has spent £4.8 million on publicity. Of that, £966,000 was on direct mail publicity. Every house in Northern Ireland was mailed with the Government's point of view during the Good Friday agreement referendum campaign. Whatever the merits of that campaign—most of us endorsed the agreement—we are making no provision for the opposite point of view to be put. Direct mail publicity would be Government propaganda, but it would come under the heading of press releases. It must be possible for the opposite point of view to be put.
    I strongly endorse the amendment and I should like a clear definition from the Minister of what counts as a press release.
    Mr. Tipping: I shall do my best to be emollient and reassuring, but, having heard the comments of the hon. Members for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), for West Worcestershire (Sir M. Spicer), for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) and for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes), I fear that it will be an uphill task.
    As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) pointed out in his well-balanced and well-judged contribution, the clause implements the Neill committee's recommendation that, at a certain point before a referendum is held, the Government of the day should stand back and leave campaigning to political parties and other campaign organisations. So far there is no argument. The Neill committee was particularly sceptical about material that has been circulated to the electorate very close to the date of previous referendums, and questioned the distinction between factual and persuasive material.
    The clause implements the committee's recommendations by providing for a 28-day embargo on the issuing to the public of Government publications. The

    1059
    hon. Member for Beaconsfield will not mind my saying that he built the foundation of his speech on the Neill report and quoted extensively from it. In its comments on the draft Bill, the Neill committee welcomed these provisions. For the sake of completeness, let me tell the Committee what Neill said. Rather than criticising our proposals, he supported them:
    "We welcome your proposals on the part which should be played by the Government in referendum campaigns and your recognition of the importance of ensuring that there is a period immediately prior to a referendum in which, as you say, the Government of the day stands aside and the campaigning is left to the political parties and other organisations."
    We have had an opportunity this evening to hear the remarks of the right hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. MacGregor), who is a touchstone for fairness in the House. On Second Reading he said:
    "I am glad that the Bill includes the 28-day moratorium, which meets our point".—[Official Report, 10 January 2000; Vol. 342, c. 67.]
    Far from being critical of the Government, the right hon. Gentleman, who is the Opposition representative on the committee, has endorsed our proposals. The hon. Member for Beaconsfield based his argument on Neill, saying that what was right for a general election should be right for a referendum campaign. I have had some research done on the subject and the purdah period for a general election campaign is almost identical to the 28-day period that we are advocating.
    Amendments Nos. 54 and 55 would affect the period during which the restrictions apply. They are based on the proposition that if it is right for political parties and other campaign organisations to be subject to controls on expenditure from a date earlier than 28 days before the date of the poll, any controls on the Government should also apply from that earlier date.
    My advice to the Committee is to reject the amendments. I fear that not all right hon. and hon. Members will take that advice, so I have the task of trying to explain my case. First, as well as relying on the support of Neill and the right hon. Member for South Norfolk, I should point out that the prohibition in clause 118 is absolute. No material of the kind mentioned in the clause is allowed to be published. Controls on political parties and other organisations, on the other hand, are not of that kind. For 28 days, the Government can issue nothing, but political parties can continue to put out material, so long as their expenditure remains within certain limits during the referendum period. The accounting responsibility runs from the start of the referendum period, but there is nothing to prevent parties and other organisations from beginning to spend their money from the start of that period if they so wish.
    Secondly, it is unrealistic to expect the Government to be unable to put out material for the entire referendum period. As has been acknowledged during our discussions this evening, the referendum period could start while the Bill for the referendum was going through the House. It would be a remarkable situation if the Government could not put out material and information while the Bill was passing through the House.
    Mr. Grieve: In moving the amendment, I pointed out to the Minister that, although it applied to the entire referendum period, there were alternative options, one of which was the 14-day period that preceded the 28-day
    1060
    period—the time when the Electoral Commission is selecting the umbrella organisations. Is the Minister willing to consider whether that period should be similarly covered, as well as the 28 days?
    Mr. Tipping: Of course I am willing to consider the points that the hon. Gentleman makes, but I have a firmer and stronger argument. It could often be the case that the referendum period started while the Bill was before the House. Even extending the limits as he proposes would create real difficulties.
    In respect of amendments Nos. 54 and 55, first, reliance on Neill is unfair and unfounded. Indeed, the Neill committee supports the Government. Secondly, the 28-day period is similar to the purdah period during a general election campaign—another point acknowledged by Neill. Thirdly, during the 28-day period the Government can put out no material at all, unlike the other campaign groups. Fourthly, and perhaps most important, it would be a strange state of affairs if the Government were passing legislation around the referendum, but were not in a position to put out information or promote their views.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in giving way yet again. Will he refer to the point about press notices? When he says that the Government can put out no material during the 28-day period, what is there to stop them putting out material that would normally be caught by the prohibition, but getting round it by putting the words "press notice" at the top of it?
    Mr. Tipping: I shall come to that point when I address amendments Nos. 56 and 57. I have tried to reassure the Committee, to be emollient and to say that amendments Nos. 54 and 55 are unnecessary.
    The Neill committee was concerned that the Government of the day might—at public expense—distribute material, even purportedly factual documents that put forward the Government's case, that had the effect of influencing the vote. Clause 118 is intended to prohibit the distribution of such unsolicited material addressed directly to the public as a whole. To address the point raised by the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) clause 118(3) provides for certain exemptions to the overall prohibition. Those exceptions are entirely consistent with the basic proposition that the Government of the day should not be able unfairly to influence the conduct of a referendum campaign.
    11.30 pm
    Amendment No. 56 deals with press notices. The hon. Member for Hazel Grove (Mr. Stunell) asked me to define a press notice—and the hon. Member for New Forest, East repeated that request. A press notice is a notice issued to the press. I know that the hon. Member for Hazel Grove is keen to pin those issues down and, since he spoke, we have been trying to identify a statutory definition of a press notice, but I am afraid that none exists. Under clause 118(3)(d), the Government of the day would continue to be able to issue press notices, but that does not represent an attempt to circumvent the basic principle behind the clause.
    The point of the restrictions is to prevent the Government distributing directly to the public, but the press should continue to be able to demand information

    1061
    from the Government. Information contained in a press notice will be subject to the scrutiny and comment of the press before it reaches the public. During the purdah period, the press will approach the Government and it is appropriate that they should be able to respond. The press, as always, will make what they can of the press notice, and one of the issues the press will consider is whether the Government are attempting to engineer the situation during the purdah period.
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is being emollient and is seeking to answer the genuine concerns felt by Opposition Members, but can he say whether the press notices—which, as he has stressed, are for the press—will be put on the website? If so, they will be available to everyone, and that could create much unfairness.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman leads me into a difficult area, because one of the issues that the Committee has considered—to which there is no easy solution—is that, prior to the referendum, the Government and other parties will have put material on websites. When the referendum starts, everyone involved will have a backlog of material on their websites that cannot be withdrawn. That is a real problem which the Committee has discussed and the Government are considering.
    Amendment No. 57 concerns the role of civil servants.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Let us suppose the Government were to issue a substantial publication and call it a press notice. As it had been issued as a press notice, what would stop the Government supplying a copy to anybody who wanted one or supplying many copies to organisations that wished to distribute them to others?
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman has the habit of shining a light into dark corners and discovering what is not really there. It would be faintly ludicrous deliberately to do what is outside the rules of a campaign that is being scrutinised by the press. Moreover, publishing the press notice in the way he described would be against the rules for civil servants.
    Mr. Paterson: The Minister is trying to be emollient and has been generous in giving way, but he is being naive. The figures that I quoted show that press releases represent only a small portion of the budget. For example, the Foreign Office spent £44,000 on press releases, but £4.8 million is provided for what is called extra publicity. If the press were to pick up that extra publicity, that would be an enormous weapon in the Government's hands.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman made a similar point earlier about special advisers. It is a bit rich for Conservative Members to criticise such advisers, when the Government—at Opposition Members' request—has increased by 270 per cent. the help available to Opposition parties. I have been called emollient, so I can tell the Committee that the Government will respond to another Neill report on special advisers in due course.
    Amendment No. 57 has to do with the role of civil servants. The position is clear: if people ring the Government during a referendum campaign and ask
    1062
    questions, it would be appropriate for civil servants to send them material. That is the purpose of this part of the Bill. A strong code of practice exists for the civil service, and it has been sharpened over time.
    The Government have done their best to balance this issue. They studied the Neill report for a long time and responded to it. Neill has praised the Government and has acted to ensure that the Government do not put out material. He has also acted to ensure that civil servants are not involved in the debate
    Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister is trying hard to answer the concerns raised by Conservative Members. He mentioned the historical impartiality of the civil service, which is much appreciated. However, if a person asked questions about the single currency, would the civil service send both sides of the argument in answer to those questions? Or if the Government supported a single currency, would they send out only the Government's side of the argument?
    Mr. Tipping: The civil servants would send the factual material produced by the Government. They would not take a partisan view, as that is proscribed by the sharpened code of practice. The Government are trying to do their best in what is a very difficult area, and I consider that the Bill already meets the questions raised by the amendments. I therefore hope that the amendments will be withdrawn.
    Mr. Grieve: The Minister will appreciate the strong views among Opposition Members on this issue. If they want to continue in the spirit of consensus that obtained in Standing Committee, the Government would be well advised to examine the clause very carefully once more.
    The Minister indicated that he was prepared to consider whether another period might be included within the period of purdah. I draw some slight comfort from that. He made the valid point that the extension from when debate starts in this House, for instance, might be excessive. However, we are worried that the 28-day period on its own will be insufficient. The particular mischief is that there will be a preliminary period, in which the campaign that will be set up in opposition to the view that the Government want to put forward, but which they will subsume into their own campaign organisation, is not up and running because it has not received validation from the commission. That is a particularly sensitive period and the Minister should consider it carefully. I hope that he will; if he does not, I think that the issue will be revisited, because we feel extremely strongly about it.
    The Minister has provided some reassurance on civil service impartiality and the role of special advisers, but I have anxieties about the press notices. The hon. Gentleman admitted that they would be to the press, giving what can only be described as the Government view. I simply do not see how, once that has been done, the purdah period applies. The press will be reporting that the Government have said this, that or the other on the subject of the referendum, and will give their views on it. That is a dangerous area, and I urge the Minister to reconsider it as well, if only to qualify what the press notice should consist of.
    The Minister quoted Lord Neill as saying approvingly, when he had seen the Bill, that he believed that it implemented what he had been hoping for. I appreciate

    1063
    that these things are always difficult, but comparing the report with the clause, I see many deficiencies in the clause as drafted. However, Lord Neill may have been pleasantly surprised that the Government were prepared to implement even one iota of his recommendations, because he proposed some revolutionary changes in the way in which Governments approach referendums. The Bill will certainly do away with some of the worst excesses of what happened in the Wales referendum and, I regret, the referendum in Northern Ireland, even if I supported the Government on their aim in that matter.
    Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend is right that the Neill report seems to be at variance with what the Minister said, particularly on the issue of civil servants, although the hon. Gentleman was the personification of emollience. The report says that civil servants, official cars, the Government information service and so forth should not be used to promote the interests of the Government's side of the argument. The Minister talks about civil servants answering telephone calls and reacting to inquiries. Surely that is at variance with what the Neill report expressly recommended.
    Mr. Grieve: I agree with my hon. Friend that it would undoubtedly be at variance if civil servants put over anything other than objective factual material on the progress of the referendum. I think that the Minister can cure the problem if he defines press notices properly. On its own, the provision is extremely ambiguous; it is open to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. I ask the Minister to look at that issue particularly carefully. He could provide considerable reassurance, while still allowing the Government to perform a neutral information role which it is certainly not our intention to prevent.
    We are very concerned about the provision. We will not press the matter to a Division this evening—I do not wish to take up the time of the Committee unnecessarily. However, I assure the Minister that the issue will not go away. He has had an opportunity to hear something about the strength of view on this side of the Committee. Although we will continue to listen to his submissions in a spirit of co-operation and will try to understand the thrust of what he is saying, we are not yet satisfied nor, I think, are we likely to be satisfied as the matter stands. Subject to that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    Clause 118 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 119

    OTHER PUBLICATIONS TO CONTAIN DETAILS OF PRINTER AND PUBLISHER.
    11.45 pm
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Stunell: I shall say only three sentences—perhaps two if hon. Members are lucky. I remind the Minister that subsection (4) includes a phrase relating to the last page of the document and its imprint that is similar to one that
    1064
    we discussed earlier. I would be grateful if the Minister gave the same consideration to that point as he did in our earlier debate.
    Mr. Tipping: I gave an undertaking to consider a similar provision; we shall do so. If we make amendments to an earlier clause, there will be consequential changes to clause 119.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 119 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  Clause 120

    REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN BROADCASTS.
    Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: I am sorry to rise on what is, in essence, a technical point, but such matters should be addressed in Committee.
    I have no objection to the prohibition on the broadcasting in broadcasting services of contemporaneous referendum material. That is right and one cannot object to it.
    What troubles me is that clause 120 seems to prohibit a broadcaster, who wanted to take an historical view of the way that referendum campaigns had been carried out over some time, from broadcasting long after the original broadcasting material had been published. That seems to be a serious restriction on free speech. It would prevent broadcasters from analysing the material several years after the original broadcast. It is possible that I have misread the clause, but I do not think so.
    Mr. Mike O'Brien: I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has misread the clause; it is not intended to do what he describes. I will consider the point that he raises and write to him about it. If it is necessary to amend the clause because it would have the effect that he claims, we shall consider doing so.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Clause 120 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

  New Clause 1
    CHIEF COUNTING OFFICERS, AND COUNTING OFFICERS, FOR REFERENDUMS
      'CHAPTER IV

        CONDUCT OF REFERENDUMS
        .—(1) This section has effect in relation to any referendum to which this Part applies.
        (2) There shall be a Chief Counting Officer for the referendum, who (subject to subsection (8)) shall be—

        (a) the chairman of the Commission, or

        (b) if the chairman of the Commission appoints some other person to act as Chief Counting Officer for the referendum, the person so appointed.

        (3) The Chief Counting Officer for the referendum shall appoint a counting officer for each relevant area in Great Britain.
        (4) The local authority in the case of each such area shall place the services of their officers at the disposal of the counting officer for the area for the purpose of assisting him in the discharge of his functions.
        (5) Each counting officer shall, as respects the votes cast in the area for which he is appointed, certify—

        (a) the number of ballot papers counted by him, and

        (b) the number of votes cast in favour of each answer to a question asked in the referendum.

        (6) The Chief Counting Officer shall certify—

        (a) the total number of ballot papers counted, and

        (b) the total number of votes cast in favour of each answer to a question asked in the referendum,

        in the whole of the referendum area.
        (7) Where two or more forms of ballot paper are used in the referendum, a separate number shall be certified under subsection (5)(a) or (6)(a) in relation to each form of ballot paper so used.
        (8) Where the referendum is held in Northern Ireland, the Chief Electoral Officer for Northern Ireland—

        (a) shall be the Chief Counting Officer for the referendum if it is held only in Northern Ireland, and

        (b) in any other case shall be treated, for the purposes of subsection (5), as if he were a counting officer appointed under this section for the whole of Northern Ireland.

        (9) In this section—

        (a) "relevant area in Great Britain" means any of the following—

        (i) a district in England or a London borough,

        (ii) the City of London (including the Inner and Middle Temples), the Isle of Wight or the Isles of Scilly,

        (iii) a local government area in Scotland, or

        (iv) a county or county borough in Wales,

        where it is comprised in the referendum area;

        (b) "the local authority"—

        (i) in the case of an area falling within paragraph (a)(i), (iii) or (iv), means the council for that area, and

        (ii) in the case of an area falling within paragraph (a)(ii), means the Common Council of the City of London, the Council of the Isle of Wight or the Council of the Isles of Scilly, as the case may be;

        (c) "the referendum area" means the parts or part of the United Kingdom, or (as the case may be) the region in England, throughout which the referendum is held as mentioned in section 95(1).'.—[Mike O'Brien.]

        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
        The Second Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 2—Orders regulating conduct of referendums.
        Government amendment No. 9.
        Mr. O'Brien: I understand that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) wants to make some points on the new clauses and the amendment, so I shall introduce them briefly.
        The two new clauses contain procedural provisions for the administration of a referendum. Provision for major referendums, such as those in Scotland and Wales in 1997, has customarily been made in separate Bills, but those Bills contained several administrative provisions that have, by now, become standard.
        It is not the intention that the Bill should replace the need for specific legislation to authorise the holding of a referendum on a particular issue; we made that clear earlier in our proceedings. However, the consideration of
        1066
        such legislation should focus on the key issues: whether it is right to hold a referendum on the particular issue and, if so, when it should be held and what the question should be. By covering the nuts and bolts of a referendum in the Bill, we can ensure that future Parliaments can concentrate on the big picture.
        New clause 1 designates the chairman of the Electoral Commission as the chief counting officer in any referendum to which part VII of the Bill applies. There is one exception to that rule: when a referendum is held only in Northern Ireland, the chief electoral officer is designated as the chief counting officer.
        The clause also empowers the chief counting officer to appoint counting officers in each local government area where the referendum is being held. As a result, votes will be counted and declared at the level of a district council or a London borough in England, and by local authority area in Scotland and Wales. That follows the practice in referendums that have been held to date. There would be one count and one declaration in Northern Ireland.
        I understand that the main concern of the hon. Member for South Staffordshire is new clause 2. The purpose of that clause is to enable the provisions of the Representation of the People Acts and regulations to be applied to any referendum. The clause mirrors similar order-making powers in section 4 of the Greater London Authority (Referendum) Act 1998—I have a copy of the Act before me.
        Mr. Hogg rose—
        Mr. O'Brien: I will give way to the right hon. and learned Gentleman in a moment.
        Section 1 of the Referendum Act 1975, schedule 12 to the Wales Act 1978 and schedule 17 to the Scotland Act 1978 contain similar provisions. The clause is entirely benign, with no hidden agenda. I hope that the hon. Member for South Staffordshire will accept that that is our intention. The Secretary of State will have to consult the Electoral Commission before making any order under the provision, and the order will have to come before the House.
        Mr. Hogg: The Minister will know that new clause 2 contains a power to create offences and to apply and disapply other enactments to the provision. Is the order-making power covered entirely by clause 142? As I understand it in this context, clause 142 uses the negative, not the affirmative, procedure. Will he, therefore, confirm that the affirmative procedure is not being applied to the creation of offences?
        Mr. O'Brien: The creation of some offences will already be covered in the representation of the people legislation. In effect, all that we are doing is importing into a referendum campaign provisions that we all accept for general election campaigns. I do not think that there is any particular problem here. If we were seeking to go further, the Committee would become aware of that and I expect that it would be a matter of considerable controversy.
        Although in practice the right hon. and learned Gentleman may have a point—I certainly undertake to consider it—in reality the provision will not cause any great difficulty. The matters about which he has expressed

        1067
        concern are the sorts of provisions that we would deal with on a day-to-day basis in any local government election, never mind a national election or a referendum.
        Sir Michael Spicer: Will the Minister give way?
        Mr. O'Brien: I shall give way once more, and that will be it.
        Sir Michael Spicer: Whether new clause 2 is benign in the way that the Minister described depends on how one interprets words such as
        "regulating the conduct of referendums".
        That phrase is all embracing, so will it cover how the question is set? What assurances can the Minister provide given that the words are in the new clause and are all-embracing?
        Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—we dealt with this point earlier in the debate—that there will be specific legislation on any national referendum campaign. We deal with such issues on a daily basis in relation to any general election. New clause 2 is entirely benign.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: The Minister is in his less emollient mood. A few moments ago, the Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office, used his technique of gentle persuasion and sweet reason; now we have the staccato utterances of the Minister as he seeks to persuade us—without taking much trouble over doing so—that new clause 2 is benign. I direct my remarks to that new clause, because we have no quarrel with new clause 1.
        New clause 2 has been called—and with some justification—a Henry VIII clause. Through it, unfettered powers can be taken by the Secretary of State. He can, by order, make certain provisions. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, the Secretary of State can dictate what offences have been created. The new clause gives him enormous power. There is not even much of a fig-leaf in subsection (4). It refers to the necessity to consult the commission, but the commission has no power of veto or real authority in this matter.
        The Minister prayed in aid the Representation of the People Bill, but clause 11(4) of that Bill states:
        "An order under subsection (1) shall be made by statutory instrument; and no such order shall be made unless a draft of the statutory instrument containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament."
        It would be nice for the Minister to listen to what I am saying. [Interruption.] The Government Whip should contain himself; he is getting terribly agitated and will only prolong the agony by so doing.
        Where is the reference in new clause 2 to the power of the House? There is very real concern on this side of the Committee that, at the end of the Committee proceedings, the Secretary of State is taking to himself unfettered, unrestricted powers. Although I do not for a moment seek to impugn the Minister's good intention, his explanation did not go anywhere near far enough to convince us that the new clause is benign. Indeed, we consider it malign and we are very worried about it. Unless he can give us some powerful promises and assurances, we will certainly want to divide the Committee on it.
        Mr. Swayne: I find new clause 2 absolutely outrageous. We are at the end of the Committee stage, having discussed the ins and outs of the Bill, and we discover that notwithstanding all that we have said, the Secretary of State can do as he pleases and make up the rules as he goes along. The Minister says that the new clause is benign. Has it occurred to him that the Secretaries of State who follow may not be benign?
        We are dealing here with the conduct of referendums. Has the Minister studied the conduct of the referendums as used by dictators in the 1930s? Referendums are tools of tyranny in the wrong hands. What self-respecting Parliament hands such wide-ranging order-making powers to Ministers, however benign they might be—like a benign tumour perhaps?
        Subsection (2)(a) says that the Secretary of State may make an order to
        "make provision for the creation of offences".
        Perhaps one of the most awe-inspiring things that we do in this place is to create offences that may result in the imprisonment of some of our constituents. A Parliament should think long and carefully about that, but we are not prepared to think about it at all; we are prepared to hand the powers to a Minister.
        What sort of Parliament would pass this new clause? My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) said that it is a Henry VIII clause; it is in fact an Attila the Hun clause.
        Mr. Hogg: I support the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne). New clause 2 is indeed far reaching. It does not matter much to me whether it is an Attila the Hun clause or a Henry VIII clause, but it is certainly not a clause that the House should support.
        We need to analyse the new clause, bearing in mind the fact that it must be read in the context of clause 142. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to do at least three things. First, in the context of referendums, it enables him to create offences that, by definition, have a penalty attached, which will be either a fine, a term of imprisonment or a period of disqualification and may incur more than one of those penalties. The new clause enables the Secretary of State to create offences without seeking the consent of the House.
        Dr. Julian Lewis: Is my right hon. and learned Friend suggesting that the Government are pretending not only to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, but tough in the creation of new crimes?
        Mr. Hogg: Indeed; the Government do not intend to consult the House.
        Secondly, the new clause enables the Secretary of State not only to create new offences, but to apply to the referendum law any other enactment that he chooses. He can fish a provision from another statute and apply it to the law on referendums without coming to the House. That is a bizarre proposition.
        Thirdly—this is even more bizarre, especially in a time of devolution—the new clause enables the Secretary of State by order to apply or disapply the law as it is contained in the Bill differentially as between the various parts of the United Kingdom. We can therefore have

        1069
        different systems of law applying to different parts of the UK that are promulgated by law at the behest of the Secretary of State. All that is done by order—and by the negative procedure, as clause 142 states. In other words, none of the things that I have described has to come before the House.
        I used Henry VIII clauses as a Minister—of course I did—and the Government of whom I was a member used them over many years, but that does not mean that it is right to do so. We should be very chary about using such clauses. This one is so far reaching that it is best moved by the cardinal himself. I rather expect in another place the Lord Chancellor to move it. It is so far reaching that I hope that it is unacceptable to any democrat.
        12 midnight
        Mr. Stephen O'Brien: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) mentioned Henry VIII, who famously said to his wives, "I shan't be keeping you long." I shall not be keeping you long, Mr. Lord.
        The Minister was generous enough about my speech on clause 111 and schedule 13 to accept that, in certain respects, my arguments had validity and to say that he would be looking into them and would write to me. I hope that he will be equally open minded on this matter. He will recall that the basis of those arguments was ensuring the democratic legitimacy of provisions, particularly those on referendums. If referendums are for anything, they are to confer the democratic legitimacy of the populace on measures that affect the whole country. Therefore, new clause 2 must go to the very heart of democratic legitimacy, especially in relation to referendums.
        Under new clause 2, the Secretary of State is allowed to reserve for himself the powers to set rules. As a Minister of the Crown, he is bound to have an interest in the outcome of a referendum. Therefore, he would be setting the rules for a game in which he had an interest whether he won or lost, and whatever side of the argument he took. That is why it was fair of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to say that, although most Governments have habitually used Henry VIII clauses, there is a very real reason why it is not appropriate to do so in this case. The new clause should not be agreed.
        Mr. Nicholas Winterton: The Minister described new clause 2 as benign. I rise to speak briefly because I want to know how he can describe it so. It has been said from the Opposition Benches that the new clause is a Henry VIII provision, and the one thing that one cannot say about Henry VIII is that he was benign.
        Bearing in mind what my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) and other hon. Friends have said, I am sure that, in seeking to give me his definition of "benign" in his winding-up speech, the Minister will accept that the new clause is draconian. It gives the Secretary of State very wide powers.
        Mr. Hayes: Perhaps the Minister confuses benign with vague. It is probably true that the more specific the clauses, the more benign they are; the more vague they
        1070
        are, the less benign they are. Because the new clause is so wide ranging, it is anything but benign. Vagueness is no excuse for accuracy in defining what Ministers can and cannot do under this Bill or any other legislation.
        Mr. Winterton: I am not sure that I can answer that point. I am hoping that the Minister will deal with my hon. Friend's intervention in his winding-up speech. I agree with the views expressed by my hon. Friend, as I do with those expressed by my fellow Cheshire Member of Parliament, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who in a brief speech made some important points.
        New clause 2 is surely a draconian, all-enveloping provision, which gives substantial powers to the Secretary of State. Can the Minister justify his remarks that the clause is not that important and is benign? This matter is important, and the House deserves a proper and full explanation.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: The Question is, That the clause be read a Second time—
        Sir Patrick Cormack: Are we to take it, Mr. Lord, that the Minister, having heard the strong objections from the Opposition—
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Order. The Minister gave no indication that he wished to address the House.
        Sir Patrick Cormack: In that case, Mr. Lord, I shall say a few words. That is contemptuous treatment of the House of Commons. Several extremely powerful points were made by the Opposition.
        The new clause is utterly unacceptable. The Secretary of State would take to himself wide-ranging powers when, as we have heard, in a referendum all the dice are loaded in favour of the Government of the day.
        In a genuine fit of repentance, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) explained how wrong such Henry VIII clauses are. There is nothing worse than for the Government to take the powers of a Henry VIII clause when dealing with a referendum. We are utterly opposed to the new clause, and we are, frankly, disgusted that the Minister is not prepared to answer the debate. We want to press the motion to a Division.
        Mr. Hogg: I support my hon. Friend. On any view of the matter, the new clause gives the Secretary of State the power to create new offences and to apply the law differentially throughout the United Kingdom. Whether that should be done by affirmative resolution or negative resolution or be written into the Bill is a matter for legitimate debate. The Opposition have urged a certain point of view. It is a disgrace that those on the Government Front Bench have not sought to respond to those points. It is a contempt of Parliament.
        Mr. Mike O'Brien: It is inappropriate that I have failed to address the important point raised by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg). I understand that the usual channels have had their discussions about the length of

        1071
        the debate. Hon. Members in all parts of the House will understand that some hon. Members want to go home. One can understand that. [Interruption.]
        However, let me address the point rightly raised by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, which is relevant. He suggested that the measure could be introduced under the negative resolution. The precedent is that it should be done by affirmative resolution. We need to consider the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point. It is my view that the affirmative resolution procedure should properly be used, but I will examine the matter.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: We are dealing with new clause 1. The Question is—
        Sir Michael Spicer rose
        The Second Deputy Chairman: I call Sir Michael Spicer.
        Sir Michael Spicer: There is one point that I want to raise with the Minister. I pointed out in an intervention that the new clause gives overriding powers to the Secretary of State. The Minister said that the Bill contained safeguards against that. The issue has arisen late in the day, and overrides everything else in the Bill. It is all-inclusive and all-embracing. The Minister must answer the point. He cannot simply say that there are safeguards in the Bill. The new clause is crucial, which is probably why it was introduced so late.
        Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Gentleman is wrong. That is nonsense.
        Mr. Paterson: This must be one of the lowest points in this Parliament. [Interruption.] It is 12.10 am—
        Mr. Joe Ashton: On a point of order, Mr. Lord. On at least two occasions, you have risen to your feet to put the Question, and then withdrawn because an Opposition Member stood up. The will of the House is to put the Question now.
        The Second Deputy Chairman: Let me be clear: I have not completely put the Question. We are in Committee, and hon. Members can speak as often as they choose. It is important that we hear hon. Members who want to contribute.
        Mr. Paterson: My hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack) and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) posed some pertinent questions. Notwithstanding clause 142, which gives the Home Secretary extraordinarily wide powers, we have not received a proper explanation of why, without consulting Parliament, the Home Secretary, who will not be impartial in a referendum campaign, should be given such wide powers in new clause 2.
        Secondly, under new clause 2, the Home Secretary will be able to choose different provisions for different parts of the United Kingdom. That is extraordinary and unique. I have never seen such a provision before. It is a charter for gerrymandering the referendum and a power of which Mr. Mugabe could only dream.
        1072
        I know that hon. Members want to go to beddy-byes, but we want straight answers to our pertinent questions. The provision is a constitutional outrage and the Minister should answer the questions before we vote.
        Question put and agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

      New Clause 2

        ORDERS REGULATING CONDUCT OF REFERENDUMS
        '.—(1) The Secretary of State may by order make such provision as he considers expedient for or in connection with regulating the conduct of referendums to which this Part applies.
        (2) An order under this section may, in particular—

        (a) make provision for the creation of offences;

        (b) apply (with or without modification) any provision of any enactment;

        and different provision may be made under this section in relation to different parts of the United Kingdom.
        (3) An order under this section shall not apply in relation to any referendum in relation to which specific provision is made by any other enactment for or in connection with regulating any matters relating to the conduct of the referendum, except to such extent (if any) as may be provided by that enactment.
        (4) Before making an order under this section the Secretary of State shall consult the Commission.'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
        Brought up, and read the First time.
        Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:— The Committee divided: Ayes 266, Noes 135.

        Division No. 81]

        [12.14 am

        AYES

        Ainger, Nick

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Clapham, Michael

        Alexander, Douglas

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Allen, Graham

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Ashton, Joe

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Clelland, David

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Coaker, Vemon

        Austin, John

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Banks, Tony

        Cohen, Harry

        Barnes, Harry

        Coleman, Iain

        Barron, Kevin

        Colman, Tony

        Bayley, Hugh

        Connarty, Michael

        Beard, Nigel

        Corbyn, Jeremy

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Corston, Jean

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Cousins, Jim

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

        Cox, Tom

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Cranston, Ross

        Benton, Joe

        Crausby, David

        Berry, Roger

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Best, Harold

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Betts, Clive

        Cummings, John

        Blackman, Liz

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Dalyell, Tam

        Blizzard, Bob

        Darvill, Keith

        Borrow, David

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Davidson, Ian

        Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Browne, Desmond

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Burden, Richard

        Burgon, Colin

        Dawson, Hilton

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Campbell-Savours, Dale

        Dobbin, Jim

        Caplin, Ivor

        Donohoe, Brian H

        Casale, Roger

        Doran, Frank

        Caton, Martin

        Dowd, Jim

        Cawsey, Ian

        Drew, David

        1073

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Love, Andrew

        Efford, Clive

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Ennis, Jeff

        McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

        Etherington, Bill

        Field, Rt Hon Frank

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Fisher, Mark

        Macdonald, Calum

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        McDonnell, John

        Flint, Caroline

        McGuire, Mrs Anne

        Flynn, Paul

        McIsaac, Shona

        Follett, Barbara

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Mackinlay, Andrew

        Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        MacShane, Denis

        Foulkes, George

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Fyfe, Maria

        McWalter, Tony

        Gapes, Mike

        McWilliam, John

        Gardiner, Barry

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        George, Bruce (Walsall S)

        Mallaber, Judy

        Gerrard, Neil

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Marshall-Andrews, Robert

        Godman, Dr Norman A

        Martlew, Eric

        Godsiff, Roger

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Goggins, Paul

        Meale, Alan

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Merron, Gillian

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Miller, Andrew

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Mitchell, Austin

        Grocott, Bruce

        Moffatt, Laura

        Grogan, John

        Moran, Ms Margaret

        Hain, Peter

        Morley, Elliot

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Mountford, Kali

        Hanson, David

        Mudie, George

        Heal, Mrs Sylvia

        Mullin, Chris

        Healey, John

        Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

        Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

        Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Heppell, John

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hesford, Stephen

        Norris, Dan

        Hoey, Kate

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Hood, Jimmy

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        O'Neill, Martin

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Organ, Mrs Diana

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Pearson, Ian

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Pickthall, Colin

        Illsley, Eric

        Pike, Peter L

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Plaskitt, James

        Jamieson, David

        Pollard, Kerry

        Jenkins, Brian

        Pond, Chris

        Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

        Pope, Greg

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Pound, Stephen

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Purchase, Ken

        Rammell, Bill

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Rapson, Syd

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

        Rooney, Terry

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Ross, Emie (Dundee W)

        Kemp, Fraser

        Rowlands, Ted

        Kidney, David

        Roy, Frank

        Kilfoyle, Peter

        Ruddock, Joan

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Kumar, Dr Ashok

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Sarwar, Mohammad

        Laxton, Bob

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Lepper, David

        Sawford, Phil

        Levitt, Tom

        Sheerman, Barry

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Singh, Marsha

        Linton, Martin

        Skinner, Dennis

        Lock, David

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        1074

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Trickett, Jon

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Truswell, Paul

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

        Snape, Peter

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Spellar, John

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Tynan, Bill

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Stevenson, George

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Stewat, Ian (Eccles)

        Welsh, Andrew

        White, Brian

        Stinchcombe, Paul

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)

        Winnick, David

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Wise, Audrey

        Temple-Morris, Peter

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Wright, Dr Tony (Cannock)

        Timms, Stephen

        Tipping, Paddy

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Todd, Mark

        Mr. Tony McNulty and

        Touhig, Don

        Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe.

        NOES

        Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

        Gorman, Mrs Teresa

        Amess, David

        Gray, James

        Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

        Green, Damian

        Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

        Greenway, John

        Baldry, Tony

        Grieve, Dominic

        Bercow, John

        Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

        Beresford, Sir Paul

        Hammond, Philip

        Blunt, Crispin

        Hawkins, Nick

        Boswell, Tim

        Hayes, John

        Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

        Heald, Oliver

        Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

        Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

        Brady, Graham

        Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

        Brazier, Julian

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

        Horam, John

        Browning, Mrs Angela

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Jack, Rt Hon Michael

        Bumett, John

        Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

        Burns, Simon

        Jenkin, Bemard

        Butterfill, John

        Key, Robert

        Cash, William

        Lait, Mrs Jacqui

        Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

        Lansley, Andrew

        Leigh, Edward

        Chope, Christopher

        Letwin, Oliver

        Clappison, James

        Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

        Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

        Lidington, David

        Collins, Tim

        Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

        Colvin, Michael

        Loughton, Tim

        Cormack, Sir Patrick

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Cran, James

        Maclean, Rt Hon David

        Curry, Rt Hon David

        McLoughlin, Patrick

        Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

        Madel, Sir David

        Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

        Malins, Humfrey

        Day, Stephen

        Maude, Rt Hon Francis

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

        Duncan, Alan

        May, Mrs Theresa

        Duncan Smith, Iain

        Moore, Michael

        Evans, Nigel

        Moss, Malcolm

        Faber, David

        Nicholls, Patrick

        Fabricant, Michael

        Norman, Archie

        Fallon, Michael

        O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

        Flight, Howard

        Ottaway, Richard

        Fox, Dr Liam

        Page, Richard

        Fraser, Christopher

        Paice, James

        Gale, Roger

        Paterson, Owen

        Garnier, Edward

        Pickles, Eric

        Gibb, Nick

        Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

        Gill, Christopher

        Randall, John

        Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

        Redwood, Rt Hon John

        1075

        Rendel, David

        Townend, John

        Robertson, Laurence

        Tredinnick, David

        Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxboume)

        Trend, Michael

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Tyrie, Andrew

        Ruffley, David

        Walter, Robert

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Wardle, Charles

        St Aubyn, Nick

        Waterson, Nigel

        Sanders, Adrian

        Webb, Steve

        Sayeed, Jonathan

        Whitney, Sir Raymond

        Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

        Whittingdale, John

        Soames, Nicholas

        Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

        Spelman, Mrs Caroline

        Wilkinson, John

        Spicer, Sir Michael

        Willetts, David

        Spring, Richard

        Wilshire, David

        Steen, Anthony

        Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

        Streeter, Gary

        Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Yeo, Tim

        Swayne, Desmond

        Young, Rt Hon Sir George

        Syms, Robert

        Tapsell, Sir Peter

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

        Mrs. Eleanor Laing and

        Taylor, John M (Solihull)

        Mr. Peter Luff.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.
        Amendment made: No. 9, in title, line 4, after "campaigns", insert—
        'and the conduct of referendums'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]
        Bill (Clauses 1 to 18 and 95 to 120, schedules 1, 2 and 11 to 14, and new clauses and new schedules relating to parts I and VII) reported, with amendments; to lie upon the Table. Bill, as amended in the Committee and in the Standing Committee, to be considered tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

  Police Funding (Avon and Somerset)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]
  12.27 am
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am grateful for the opportunity at this late hour to raise the funding of Avon and Somerset police.
  The funding of our police service is a matter of considerable concern to my constituents, but I want to set my speech in the context of my respect and admiration for the work done by the force. Its officers serve our community faithfully and with great dedication. One of my aims is to ensure that advantage is not taken of that work, and that the force receives the backing that it deserves. I am pleased to be joined by my hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was chairman of Avon and Somerset police authority for three years and brings great experience to the debate.
  The dedication and professionalism of our force deserve from Members on both sides of the House not just warm words, but hard cash. That means cash for salaries and pensions, cash for officers on the ground, and cash for support services. My central contention is that the Avon and Somerset police force is stretched to the limit. I do not wish to be unnecessarily alarmist, but the force is clearly under pressure—pressure that is not entirely consistent with the language that the Government have used, and the way in which they have financed the force.
  My normal custom in debate is to rely heavily on statistical evidence, and I shall shortly draw to some extent on facts and figures. First, however, I want to give some impressions of the current position from those involved in the police service. Let me start at the top, as I generally do.
  The Bristol Evening Post recently ran a story quoting Avon and Somerset' s chief constable, Steve Pilkington. He is not someone who rushes to the press lightly, or is regularly quoted as saying things that stir matters up. However, speaking of this year's budget settlement, he said:
  "We have a very, very tight budget. We will have to reduce our support staff at HQ.
  You take a risk when you do that. It does mean that when there is a major incident we won't be able to mobilise the support that we have done in the past."
  That is the perspective of the chief constable. He was not being alarmist, but saying that a gamble was inherent in the settlement for the coming year.
  I have done some research, and have spoken to officers at my local police station in Chipping Sodbury. They spoke of increasing pressure to take time away from front-line police duties. They talked about increasing pressure for training. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House would welcome a well-trained police service, but if that means that a given number of officers have less time for front-line policing, the bare statistics about the number of officers will not reflect their ability to deliver on the ground. We want them to be trained in human rights, new legislation, and the use of equipment and technology. Those are all good things, but if they detract from front-line policing and, at the same time, there is pressure on police numbers, something somewhere will have to give.

  1077
  To give perhaps the most extreme example that I have come across in just the few days that I have been making inquiries, to coin a phrase, one constable, who for understandable reasons asked not to be named in the debate, told me that, on 25 days in the past year, he had been told not to use his police car because the budget would not wear it. The cost of the petrol would mean going over budget. On 25 occasions, he was told to stay at the station, do some paperwork and not get in the car. That was spontaneous. I did not ring up and say, "Tell me it is terrible." He simply said, "Those are the day-to-day pressures that budgets are under. That is the effect on the service on the ground." That is a sign of a force that is under stress and being pushed perhaps a little too far.
  What are the hard facts about the settlement and the position for Avon and Somerset? The police authority has estimated that there was a shortfall of roughly £7 million between the funding that it was given by central Government, the assumed rise in council tax, or in the precept on the council tax, and what it needed to meet the demands. In a budget of roughly £180 million, £7 million is a substantial figure.
  Why are there such pressures? Two substantial ones are well known to the Minister. The effect of pay awards and inflation eats up all the additional grant and additional assumed council tax rise. Over and above that, £2 million is needed for police pensions.
  I was shocked to learn that, in the budget overall, £1 in every £6 of net police spending goes not on the police, but on pensions. That is an arbitrary way in which to fund those liabilities. That is the position not just in the police service, but in the fire service and other sectors of public service.
  I recognise what the Minister said in the debate the other day—I think on 3 February. The Government recognise that it is a problem. The previous Government, the Conservatives, said that they recognised that there was a problem. We all recognise that there is a problem. We do not appear to be any nearer a solution. I hope that the Minister can reassure me that, year on year, the Government will not keep loading pension costs on to forces at the expense of police officers.
  How is the authority having to respond to that pressure on the budget? Most obviously, it is having to cut police officers. Reluctantly, the police will cut 30 officers from the force in the coming year—not front-line officers, but police officers based mainly at Avon and Somerset headquarters.
  The Government have talked about 5,000 extra officers-5,000 over three years, of course—through the crime fighting fund. Yes, Avon and Somerset will get some officers. It bid for more than 160. It has been awarded 101, spread over three years. Next year it will get 20 additional officers—so 30 down, 20 up: a net loss of 10.
  I was in the House this afternoon when the Prime Minister boasted about the investment in extra police, but Avon and Somerset will not have extra police. Despite the figures that he quoted, it will have 10 fewer officers next year. Last year, between March and September, Avon and Somerset numbers fell by 11. It was 11 down in that period and another 10 down this year, yet the Government talk about being tough on crime. They do not back that up with money to make it a reality.
  1078
  As well as cutting the number of officers, what else has the force been forced to do? It has had to cut not only back-room staff—back-room police officers—but support staff. Funding of support staff decreased by a further 1.5 per cent. to 95 per cent.
  The force sat down and decided what a good police service should do. It thought that it would investigate financial crime more. That has been scrapped. No additional investment is planned because it cannot afford it. It planned to make some long-needed capital investment to make the force more efficient and to replace worn-out equipment. A £2 million contribution from revenue was going to go into capital. That was scrapped.
  There is an allowance in the budget for 3.5 per cent. pay awards, but there is no general provision for price changes, so, as prices rise, the budget has to bear those costs. Petrol is the classic case. Petrol prices have been rising very rapidly and hitting police budgets, so that police officers cannot use their cars, which are costing too much money to operate. It is an absurd situation.
  What has been the impact on service provision? The police authority report states:
  "the loss of 30 officers from central staffs could impact on the level of support given to police districts"—
  particularly if there were a major incident—
  "and a further reduction in support staff will be felt in terms of internal service delivery".
  That means the people who help police to do their job. The report continues:
  "it is only with an eye to the impact on precept that the Chief Constable has reluctantly proposed a reduction in authorised police strength."
  In other words—even with a "measured" cut of 30 police officers—the precept is rising by 11 per cent. The chief constable, who is worried about the precept, after cutting 30 officers, was willing to allow it to rise to 11 per cent. That is the type of pressure that police are under. However, not only officers will be cut.
  As the report states,
  "a backlog of forensic samples may build up"
  because planned additional investment in forensics has had to be cut. Moreover, equipment programmes have been pared, and other programmes have been deferred. The situation has the aura of make do and mend, not of a modern efficient police service.
  I believe that the Avon and Somerset police force is efficient and that it has made efficiency savings and achieved a great deal. However, constantly asking year on year for greater efficiencies without granting capital and making investment to achieve them eventually runs only into a dead end.
  There have, therefore, been cuts in officers and in back-room services, but an 11 per cent. council tax rise. What can be done? I reassure the Minister that I have read in full the transcript of the debate of 3 February, when he announced the new grant settlement, which was debated in the House. Some of the points that I shall make today were made also in that debate. I shall therefore not make the points at great length, but they are particularly germane to Avon and Somerset.
  Avon and Somerset has in previous years particularly, and to a limited extent this year, had to dip into its balances, taking them dangerously low. The force's

  1079
  balances are now below the level recommended by auditors. One can almost picture the police authority with its collective fingers crossed, hoping that nothing happens or goes wrong, because resources and reserves are low and the officers are stretched. We just hope that there will not be a major call on the force. But is that any way to have to run a police service?
  The funding formula needs to be addressed. The arguments on that are well known to the Minister. He is aware of the impact of sparsity on areas such as Avon and Somerset, and the Home Office has accepted its impact on policing costs. The area cost adjustment—which may seem irrelevant in this context—and the damping effect of using six-year-old establishment factors contribute to making the funding formula unjust. I think that it is widely accepted that the formula is unjust. However, the Government's bizarre response is to do nothing about it for at least a year, to ensure stability.
  Stability is a virtue, but it is not a virtue that counteracts injustice. This is perhaps an extreme analogy, but if someone were wrongfully arrested, we would not say that stability demands that we should leave them in jail—justice demands that we should get them out. Stability does not counteract injustice, which should be tackled at the earliest opportunity.
  I have already addressed the pensions issues. It is agreed that it is a problem. However, there is no sign of a solution, and the problem will only get worse with every passing year.
  As for the council tax benefit limitation scheme, the fact is that, when the precept rises by 11 per cent., councils will—according to the police authority—be penalised by half a million pounds, which is the equivalent of 20 officers. Therefore, although so-called crude and universal capping may have gone, back-door capping is alive and well and affecting the decisions of police authorities on policing.
  I just wonder how the people of Avon and Somerset would feel if they appreciated that decisions on police numbers—decisions to cut police officers from the force—were being affected by the modem equivalent of council tax capping. If they knew, I think that they would be very concerned. When they receive their council tax bills and see the precept rise of 11 per cent., they will perhaps assume that a major improvement in the force has been made, such as the purchase of a second helicopter. They will be shocked when they learn that it is accompanied by cuts in officers, planned investment and services.
  We cannot talk only about inputs; we have to talk about outputs. No one can deny that, in the past six years, the Avon and Somerset force has made important progress in cutting crime. I welcome that unreservedly and pay tribute to the force. I have two concerns. First, we should not allow ourselves to become complacent by focusing on a high base period of the early 1990s, when crime was at record levels. With the aid of the Library, I have looked at the record for the past 20 years. In the early 1980s, recorded crime in Avon and Somerset was at barely half its present level. Although things are moving in the right direction, crime levels are still unacceptably high. There is a feeling that some people do not bother to report minor crimes, because they think that the police are too stretched.
  1080
  The trends on recorded crime are moving in the right direction, but I fear that that will not continue in the medium term if the force continues to be put under pressure. In its survey this year, the force asked a new question:
  "Were you satisfied with the perceived level of foot patrol?"
  Just 11 per cent. of the public were satisfied and the figure was only 27 per cent. for the mobile patrol. The headline figures may be coming down, but the public are not receiving the reassurance that they want from their police.
  The Government are out of touch with the wishes of the people of Avon and Somerset. They talk a good game on police numbers, but they are not delivering. I know that the Minister accepts many of my points. I hope that this debate will emphasise to him that the people whom I represent want not just good words on policing, but action. I hope that tonight he can promise me some action.
  12.42 am
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate on the funding of the Avon and Somerset constabulary. I join in his opening tribute to the dedication and commitment of his force, particularly the chief constable, Mr. Pilkington. Early in my time as a Minister I had an opportunity to go to Bristol, where I met Mr. Pilkington and many of his colleagues in the crime reduction partnership. I was very impressed by the approach of the force and the partner authorities with whom they are seeking to fight to reduce crime levels.
  In the polarity that the hon. Gentleman suggested, it would be more accurate to describe Avon and Somerset as a modern and efficient force than to call it a make do and mend force. It is well led and is seeking to address difficult issues creatively and effectively. I want to place on record my appreciation of that.
  As the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, only a week ago I responded to an Adjournment debate from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) about the funding of Lincolnshire police. Police funding and rural crime concerns have been raised in earlier debates. They are important and genuine issues. As the hon. Gentleman generously acknowledged, my response is bound to be similar to those that I have given in previous debates.
  The House debated and approved the Government's proposals for police funding for 2000–01 on Thursday 3 February. The Liberal Democrats voted against the plans. Ironically, that would have cut the funding for all police authorities. We did not make much of that. I understand that the hon. Gentleman was not able to be in the Chamber for that debate, no doubt for a valid reason. His hon. Friend the Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) raised important issues from his experience as chairman of a police authority.
  It is important to set out the facts for Avon and Somerset constabulary. For 2000–01, its funding from the Government is £173.7 million—an increase of 3.2 per cent. on the previous year, compared with the national average of 2.8 per cent. It is important to put on record the fact that Avon and Somerset did better than the national average. I understand that the police authority unanimously set its budget on 10 February at a total of £181.2 million. The increase in its net revenue spending over 1999–2000 is 3.9 per cent., which is significant.

  1081
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the authority was conscious of the need to set a precept that was reasonable and prudent. The increase in the police precept on the council tax is 11.5 per cent. for a band D property and I understand that the increase is expected to be below the average precept increase for the south-west. I know neither why that decision was taken nor what the position of the Liberal Democrats was on those issues—given their famous tax-raising commitment—when the matter was debated in the police authority. However, I understand the constraints on every police authority in deciding what judgment to make in respect of resources and I note that the police precept increase was expected to be below the average for the south-west.
  The chief constable deserves great credit, as the hon. Gentleman said. When the police authority looked at its spending plans, it did so in a positive way that minimised the effect on delivery of front-line policing. The plans mean a reduction in police numbers by 30, but they protect the operational front line by ensuring that the cuts are made in central departments in the way suggested by the hon. Gentleman.
  It may be of interest to the House to know that the total number of police officers in the Avon and Somerset constabulary was the same in September 1999 as it was in March 1997. There has been no decline during that period. The police authority deserves tribute for maintaining stability in the force.
  Avon and Somerset's expenditure per head of population in 1999–2000 was estimated at £115.50, which is marginally better than the average for the shire counties of £114 per head of population. Avon and Somerset has done well in that significant respect. It has addressed the situation by taking hard decisions and directing them well.
  In responding to the debate, I must refer to the hon. Gentleman's point about crime levels in the county. As he acknowledged, in the 12 months to September 1999, crime in Avon and Somerset fell by 5.2 per cent. or 8,162 crimes. That contrasted with an increase in crime in England and Wales, so Avon and Somerset did extremely well in that regard.
  The hon. Gentleman said that citing that figure might suggest complacency. Let me reassure him that there is absolutely none. As the Government made plain this week, we have a clear drive towards reducing crime levels throughout the country, particularly in respect of vehicle crime, burglary and robbery. We have set a clear agenda and we are not complacent. However, it is right to congratulate the force on their success, in partnership with local authorities and others, in substantially reducing crime levels.
  I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns about resources and money. He makes a fair point and any hon. Member worth his salt would do so. However, I am sure that he would acknowledge that those concerns need to be set in the context of the genuine achievements of the force in addressing the issues and making progress.
  Mr. Webb: May I return to the Minister's earlier comment about make do and mend as opposed to modern and efficient? As the record will show, I accepted that the service is efficient. My concern is that it must not become
  1082
  make do and mend, with police officers worried about getting in the car and spending money on petrol. I hope that the Minister realises that that is unacceptable.
  Mr. Clarke: One of the joys of responding to an Adjournment debate is that one has a text to help one through these difficult discussions. The phrases "make do and mend" and "modern and efficient" were not in my text; they were in the hon. Gentleman's speech. He used that language. The record will sustain what I said—that it is important to pay tribute to the modern and efficient Avon and Somerset constabulary, rather than suggesting that it was moving towards make do and mend. I certainly did not make such a suggestion, although the hon. Gentleman may have done. Confidence in the force is both required and deserved, which is why I thought it important to respond to his suggestion that it was becoming a make do and mend force. I do not believe that the police authority, the chief constable or the senior officers believe that to be true, although they will all continue—rightly and fairly—to make the case for more resources as time passes. I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman should try to spread gossip that the force was approaching a make do and mend situation, because that is not true. I know that he would not want to be accused of spreading gloom about the future of policing in the area that he represents, and I thought that it was important to get it on the record that the Government do not believe that that is an appropriate description of the situation.
  The police authority stated in its policing plan for 1999–2000:
  "Crime reduction and community safety must be at the forefront of all that we do. We aim to reduce the overall levels of crime and disorder through working in partnership with local authorities and local communities."
  The Government can take credit for the work that they have done through the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 on building local partnerships, but the example of what has been done in the Avon and Somerset force, including the clear commitment by the whole force to working in partnership with local authorities—and, by the same token, the commitment by the local authorities to working with the police force—is exemplary and is the main reason why the force has succeeded in working with others to reduce crime. It is important to acknowledge that.
  The hon. Gentleman raised several issues, as an aside to his discussion, that were addressed in the debate on 3 February, such as sparsity, the damping factor and security issues. I shall not repeat what I said in that debate and, indeed, the hon. Gentleman generously did not ask me to do so. He highlighted two issues—pensions and pay and conditions—on which I wish to confirm what I said in that debate.
  We acknowledge that there is a serious problem with pensions. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome raised it powerfully in his speech in the debate on 3 February, and it is a genuine issue across the country. This Government and previous Governments have not grasped the issues as it needs to be grasped. It raises fundamental issues about funding as a whole, the proportion of police spending that goes on pensions, and distribution—because different forces deal with the situation in different ways.
  As I said in the earlier debate, we are addressing the issues as a matter of high priority, because the current situation is not fair. We are carefully considering what

  1083
  should be done, but I do not have a white rabbit to pull out of the hat to solve the problem. The issues have not previously been addressed because they are difficult to address and even harder to get right. What is important is that a police authority such as Avon and Somerset should not have its flexibility to decide the allocation of its resources constrained unacceptably by the proportion of its funding that must be devoted to pensions. That is a legitimate issue for the hon. Member for Northavon to raise, and I take it very seriously. Any genuinely constructive suggestions that he has about how we should address that issue would be welcome—I do not say that in a sly spirit, because I mean it seriously. Many people have odd ideas, but actually cracking the problem will be difficult.
  The hon. Gentleman was right to raise the issues he did on pay and conditions. We have a nationally agreed system of pay that offers constraint and is a significant factor, but those problems do not begin to approach the pensions problems in terms of the balance of issues that we must address.
  In conclusion, I want to emphasise that the Avon and Somerset police constabulary will receive an extra 101 posts over the next three years under the crime fighting fund. That will be of significant help in addressing some of the issues that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but it is a step in the right direction, and not the complete process. The chairman of the Avon and Somerset police authority welcomed the decision. He was very positive about it, and I welcome that acknowledgement.
  Being a Liberal Democrat, the hon. Member for Northavon is not a utopian. He will not expect me to pluck from the sky a solution that will solve every problem under the sun, and the realism of his party on tax and other matters is well known. However, I assure him in all seriousness that the Government are trying to move in the direction that he prefers.
  1084
  We want more resources to reach areas such as Avon and Somerset, but we want to ensure that the economy remains stable. Police authorities and other public-sector organisations are finding that the steady year-on-year increases under our three-year spending programme—which may not be as large as people would like—provide better help than the regime that we inherited. Under the previous Government's arrangements, resources went up and down every year, and cuts were always a possibility.
  The early years of this Government are being spent filling in some of the deep holes that developed under the previous Administration. However, the steady increases that we are achieving in resource allocation represent the way forward. In my experience, police authorities across the country welcome the balanced and steady way in which we approach such matters, as year-on-year fluctuations in resources make planning and budgeting extremely difficult.
  I appreciate that the Avon and Somerset force has a backlog of capital maintenance works. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome suggested that that backlog amounted to about £7 million and that it could be tackled if the force were allowed to unlock capital receipts. The House will understand that my Department is governed by Treasury rules, but my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the matter in his review of local authority funding.
  I have tried to deal directly with the various points legitimately raised by the hon. Member for Northavon. However, his suggestion of a potential crisis is not correct, and the police force in Avon and Somerset deserves a clear statement of the Government's confidence in the way that it is dealing with matters. I am confident that it will continue its success of recent years in bringing down crime.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to One o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR ALAN HASELHURST in the Chair]

Social Security Fraud
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mrs. McGuire.]
9.30 am
Mr. David Davis: This is my first visit to this institution; I am fortunate to have found it. I crave your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for any parliamentary solecisms that I may commit this morning, but I am not used to the Chamber's procedures. I assume that they are the same as on the Floor of the House.
The matter before us today is the Government's counter-fraud strategy. The Public Accounts Committee has made a number of reports on the subject, but I do not wish to speak about them. Many of the questions that I want to raise today are relatively new and have not yet been debated by the Public Accounts Committee. Some of them cover elements of policy, on which the Committee conventionally does not comment. I am not speaking on behalf of the Conservative party; what I have to say today will be said entirely as an ordinary Member of Parliament.
I shall put the subject in context by considering the level of fraud. First, it is almost impossible accurately to measure social security fraud. If we knew where all the missing money was going, we would, at least in theory, be able to get it back; we would not then have a problem. Every estimate made of fraud is just that—an estimate. I believe that it is often an underestimate. Social security fraud is estimated to be between £3 billion and £7 billion. Departmental estimates allocate sums to individual categories of fraud, which add up to as much as £2.5 billion. The primary figures within that estimate are as follows. Income support and income-based jobseeker's allowance fraud costs about £1,530 million. The jobseeker's allowance fraud costs about £47 million; child benefit costs £184 million; instrument of payment fraud costs £119 million, and housing benefit fraud costs £600 million. Hon. Members may have noticed that I did not include disability living allowance fraud, but that is because I believe that the Department has lost confidence in its figures. It does not mean that there is no fraud, it is simply an underestimate. More accurately, the total is between £3 billion and £7 billion. During the past two years, the Prime Minister has spoken of a total of £5 billion.
No one can imagine such sums. Billions of pounds is a meaningless phrase, but here it is equivalent to between £300 and £500 per family per year. That money is ripped off, stolen, by fraudsters. It is equivalent to between £100 and £300 per taxpayer per year. More important, it is a massive loss to the public accounts. I am that peculiar person—a right-wing Conservative who believes in high levels of public service delivery—and I see it differently. The minimum estimate of £2.5 billion would pay for 100 district hospitals a year, or for 5,000
204WH
teachers, nurses, policemen and firemen, who are sorely needed. The £5 billion estimate of the Prime Minister would pay for both. The highest estimate would pay for both and leave money over to make massive improvements in all our public services. It is enormously important.
The next question is: in what direction are we going? The Government obviously take the matter seriously, as did the previous Government, but how effective is their strategy? To be fair to the Government, it is too early to judge. The problem with social security and Benefits Agency accounts is that they are published fairly late; we have only just received the two sets of accounts for the first two years of the Government's tenure, which show little sign of improvement.
We must be wary of some of the figures; as I said earlier, they are estimates and bigger changes in the apparent fraud figures result from changes in estimating procedure than from changes of policy. To say that there is no apparent change is to say that there is no change in the estimate, not in the outcome. The numbers as published do not show a material improvement.
A better indicator from the point of view of the House is to consider the number of errors, which are more accurately assessed by the National Audit Office. Errors are important because the drivers that lead to an increase in errors in social security—weaknesses in control systems, poor administration, high levels of complexity and so on—lead to fraud. The estimate of error in income support and jobseeker's allowance rose by £80 million to £637 million in 1998–99.
The right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) will be considering in more detail the administration of local government expenditure. The Audit Commission's figures show significant increases in some areas of local government-related housing fraud, which led to contention in recent evidence to the Public Accounts Committee. There is no reason to be complacent; the issue is massively important and, at present, there is no sign that we have got a grip on it. It is not that the Government do not take it seriously, or that they are not trying to do something about it, but we have not yet made a bite into it.
To assess the problem properly, we must consider what it consists of. It is easy to talk about billions of pounds; it is also easy to pick off individual cases, such as the ram raider who made £46,000 in addition to millions of pounds of criminal income out of the disability living allowance, despite the fact that he was a scuba diver, skier and private pilot with a variety of other interesting physical pursuits. What is important is to focus on how such fraud comes about.
The most serious cause of fraud is the complexity of the regulations. More than 150 statutory instruments have been made under the social security banner in this Government's Administration. That does not tell us anything itself, but it is indicative of the complexity involved. The Benefits Agency admitted that, without simplification of the regulations for income support, about 10 per cent. of all payments will be wrong. That is a huge sum of money. It is not just fraud but poor administration that creates confusion and uncertainty for those most in need. It results in extra costs and high levels of debt, much of which is not collectable and thus makes fraud easier to execute and the perpetrators much harder to catch after the event.

205WH
The award of housing benefit is beset with problems of the same complexity as the regulations, as the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will explain later. I shall deal with complexity in the working families tax credit, which will come into effect this year.
Technology is also a difficult matter. The Department has admitted the inadequacy of its computer systems, which is a key constraint on the detection of fraud. The matter will arise again and again in my speech. Insufficient capacity, poor programme design, lack of state-of-the-art processing procedures and the inability of systems to interact all contribute to the problems.
The Department tells us that it is making progress with data sharing and with the insulation of remote access terminals in local authorities. I hope that that is progressing, as it will assist in the fight against housing benefit fraud. Under the Social Security Administration (Fraud) Act 1997, data matching will be extended where possible to include information held by the Inland Revenue. That should assist in identifying working benefit claimants. I do not, however, hold my breath on the prospect of a Department of Social Security computer helping to solve the problem. The Department's past record with information technology has had all the elegance and effectiveness of a horse-drawn hang-glider, and I should not like to rely heavily on it. The Department is clearly making its best efforts and we hope that it succeeds, but I doubt whether the new system will solve the problem.
The Government have recognised the problem of benefits as passports. A claimant who has fraudulently or erroneously been awarded a benefit such as income support can use it as a passport for a range of other benefits, including housing benefit, council tax and relief from national health charges. Such activities create a ripple effect throughout the system that is funded by the public purse. Methods of payment also create problems. Paper-based systems of delivering social security benefits are not especially secure against smaller frauds. I hesitate to call those frauds amateur; non-organised fraud is perhaps a better expression. They are evidenced by the more than £100 million a year that is lost to the fraudulent encashment of order books and giro cheques.
The conventional wisdom is that automatic credit transfer will be much more secure. I am not entirely convinced by that view. I think that it is perfectly possible that automatic credit transfer will make organised fraud much bigger, once the system is penetrated. We have only to consider the West African gangs and others who work as cleaners in offices to gain access to security codes to wonder whether our bank security arrangements would stand up to such assault. I have some doubts about that. The proposals may deal with unorganised fraud, but they may also open up the risk of mega frauds, about which we must also concern ourselves.
The benefits system clearly offers opportunities to those intent on defrauding it and the lack of a stringent prosecution policy makes the risk of defrauding the system much more attractive. Ineffective recovery legislation and visibly poor debt management and recovery will add to that attraction. When the Public Accounts Committee considered housing benefit fraud
206WH
in local government, it found that the risk of prosecution for identified and proven fraudsters was less than one in 100; fewer than one in 100 cases were pursued. The Government are addressing the issue, but to what extent? I have heard of improvements of between 30 per cent. and 40 per cent. Okay, so the Minister is thinking of a one in 60 chance of prosecution, but that is not a deterrent.
Culture is another important issue. I am concerned about the culture in modern society, some of whose members see the system as a legitimate target. In some respects, it is easy to understand that attitude, as it feels less bad to steal from a big organisation than from the corner shop, and so on. It is, however, still stealing. At the end of the day, the victims are the people who do not receive the services about which I spoke at the beginning of my remarks, which could include schooling, proper welfare support or proper health treatment. The fact that the target is diffuse does not make such stealing any less immoral.
I shall comment briefly on types of fraud before I move on to the two main strategic issues that the Government face. I have mentioned the west African gangs, but they are not by any means the only ones. Fraud can take a variety of forms, the most obvious of which are multiple claims, hijacked identities, massive theft of instruments of payment and organised counterfeiting or alteration of documentation. Very serious amounts are involved, running into millions. That must be stamped out.
A rather more systemic problem is collusive fraud, involving, for example, landlords and tenants or employers and employees. Similarly, landlords can create bogus tenants and claim for them, or tenants can create fictitious addresses at which they purport to live.
Identity fraud is another category. Lack of security over national insurance numbers can lead to their being misused to make claims under several guises at different locations. Frauds involving forged or stolen birth certificates are not uncommon in relation to claims for family benefits. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead has made a major issue of that in the past and may want to comment today.
Fraud involving residency and attendance particularly affects claims for child benefit. Residency is a key qualifying condition for the benefit, as it is payable for at least 16 years, often by automatic credit transfer, and claimants or their children can leave the country and still receive benefit. Each year, £184 million or more in child benefit is lost. More than half of that is for children over 16 who are falsely claimed to be in further education.
Working while claiming is perhaps the best known kind of benefit fraud. It is one of the main kinds of fraud in regard to income support and jobseeker's allowance. Claiming as a single person while living with someone is a key component of the loss to public funds from income support and jobseeker's allowance fraud.
Fraudulent claims for disability benefits are also an issue. As I said earlier, the relevant figure was not included in the estimate of £2.5 billion, but the fraud is serious. The detail of some of the frauds that I am concerned about shows that they are carried out ruthlessly. They are an offence against all people who are properly entitled to disability living allowance.

207WH
The first of the general issues that I want to discuss is that benefits should be simpler to understand and administer. Complex cases cause confusion and error. They deny proper benefits to deserving cases and open the door to fraud. They are morally wrong on all counts. Dealing with that problem has become known in the parlance as designing fraud out of the system. I remember an exchange that I had with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead on that when he was a Minister. He took a measured and sensible approach.
The second issue is the design of effective anti-fraud mechanisms to catch and punish offenders. I propose to review the Government's reaction to the Scampion report as an example of that. I shall not discuss the third important issue, as I believe that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead will do so, but it relates to the standards of administration and co-operation in the system, particularly the introduction of targets and incentives to reduce error and fraud.
The best written example of what I am talking about is, I say immodestly, the Public Accounts Committee's report on housing benefit, to which the Government responded reasonably constructively. The aims that have been set out may reap benefits if the relevant design and execution is good. That deserves debate.
Working families tax credit, like its predecessor, family credit, is means tested. Critics of means testing argue with some force that such benefits are inherently susceptible to fraud. As working families tax credit has increased the eligible numbers, and as the awards are more generous—both direct policy intentions of the Government, with good reason—it is argued that the number of fraudulent claims will increase. From April 2000 onwards, employers will pay working familes tax credit and offset the amount paid against tax and national insurance liability. That has led some—the most eminent of whom is the right hon. Member for Birkenhead—to argue that employers and claimants may collude. Shortly after he ceased to be a Minister, which gave him a great deal of internal knowledge of the system, with his usual authority he said:
"But the whole of the working family tax credit is fraught with great dangers…It offers huge bonuses for dishonesty for both employers and workers…It strengthens the employers hold over people—`these are the conditions: cheat and both of us will be better off' … It thereby pulls employers into a spider's web of corruption … It rewards employers paying low wages."
That is a perceptive insight into what might happen if the system is allowed to get out of control.
In addition, we have the experience of the earned income tax credit in the United States, on which the working families tax credit is based. An article in Fiscal Studies based its criticism on a study by the Internal Revenue Service—the American Inland Revenue—that was released in early 1997. It found that taxpayers claimed $4.4 billion more in EITC funds than they were eligible to receive.
The counter-argument is that the United Kingdom proposals were developed to be aligned with the pre-existing in-work benefit system rather than the tax credit system in the United States. For example, eligibility for the EITC was originally checked retrospectively, in line with the policy on tax measures. The IRS now verifies eligibility before payment. Such a process is built into the UK proposals because they are based on existing structures for in-work benefits.
208WH
The Minister might say that we need not worry about the evidence on the EITB, but he would not be correct. The Social Security Committee examined the potential for fraud. Although it acknowledged the differences between the systems in the UK and the United States, it was concerned that the increased generosity of the tax credits could exacerbate existing problems of fraud in family credit and that the transfer of functions to the Inland Revenue would create new problems. In particular, the Social Security Committee criticised the decision of the Benefits Agency to abandon a full review of family credit to estimate the level of fraud.
The agency undertook a pilot study on the operation of family credit with the intention of generating a larger and statistically more significant study. The results of the pilot study showed that the Social Security Committee was right to be concerned. In its report that accompanied the pilot study, it said that of the 300 cases that were sampled, 20 were
"selected at random in 1997 from each of 15 centres from Dunfermline to Penzance, which were closely examined by trained investigators. Several of the cases had more than one 'outcome', resulting in 326 'outcomes' from the 298 cases actually examined. The raw sample results showed that there were only 141 `outcomes' in which no frauds or errors were found as a result of the visits, interviews and adjudication reviews."
Less than half of the family credits evaluated were free of fraud or error. It continued:
"Confirmed fraud was found in 32 'outcomes' and…suspicion of fraud in another 91 'outcomes'. It can be seen therefore that in a careful pilot study conducted of this very small sample, 123 out of 326 'outcomes' involved possible or actual fraud."
The results from the pilot study are too small to be extrapolated,
"so they could equally be an under-estimate as an over-estimate of the amount of fraud in the full Family Credit caseload",
in which more than 750,000 cases amounted to expenditure of £2.5 billion in that year.
The Social Security Committee went on to list the problems that were raised by the examination of cases in the sample study. They were:
"failing to delcare capital above limits allowed… a child having left full-time education…incorrect declaration of own earnings…incorrect declaration of partner's earnings…living together as husband and wife…but claiming as a lone parent receiving other income."
It remained
"concerned that these indicative findings did not lead on to a full Review, which could have analysed the probable extent of each of these types of fraud."
I could not agree more with that conclusion.
As the working families tax credit is based on family credit, all the Committee's examples of ways in which claims had been identified as potentially false could apply under the new system. Claimants must still record details of the family's income and capital, the number of adults in the household, and the age and status of each child. False information about any of those variables could lead to an incorrect working family tax credit award.
I worry that, in introducing a new policy, with clear aims with which I do not disagree, such as creating an escape from the poverty trap, that survey was not carried further to enable us to design fraud out of the system. We know that the returns to individuals are

209WH
much larger, and that more than a million additional individuals are eligible for the working family tax credit than were eligible under the previous system. Further, the mechanism is operated by employers and not directly by benefits offices.
The result is a potentially problematic system—we do not know whether it will be because it has not yet been implemented—which could lead to serious increases in fraud, above and beyond those of which I have already spoken. As an indicator for hon. Members, I have picked out a newspaper article from late last year. It states:
"Fewer than one in 10 tax inspectors would be capable of correctly filling in the form that many of those claiming the working families' tax credit will have to complete, the profession's main umbrella group claimed yesterday. In a rare public attack on ministers, the Chartered Institute of Taxation—the leading body for tax experts, including inspectors—accused the government of breaking promises over consultation and repeating many of the errors that dogged the Child Support Agency."
That is possibly one of the most frightening things that I have ever heard about a prospective policy. I worry about the matter, and would be interested to hear what the Minister has to say about the way in which he will deal with what will be a serious matter during the many years for which the system will, no doubt, stay in place.
Secondly, I wish to deal with the assault on the fraudsters—the Government's approach to catching and dealing with them. I applied for the debate because of the Government's apparent treatment of the Scampion report, written by John Scampion, a social services commissioner. The inquiry was official, Government ordered and independent, but the report appears to have been shelved. I hope that the Minister will tell me that that is not true. The report came out on 24 January and we have heard little about it other than one thing to which I shall refer in a moment.
I can understand Ministers being uncomfortable with the comments in the report, and I shall give hon. Members about 10 quotations from the report so that they can understand why. First, it states:
"The fact is that BASIS (Benefits Agency Security Investigation Service) is not resourced to do all the work it is called upon to do".
Secondly, it states:
"There is insufficient flexibility in the total response to serious frauds".
Thirdly, it states:
"There is an unevenness of response to serious and organised fraud in different parts of the country".
Fourthly, it states:
"There are no strategic discussions between BFIS (Benefit Fraud Investigation Service) and BASIS. Their work is fragmented resulting in organised frauds not being pursued".
Fifthly, it states:
"One immediate issue is the provision of a basic hands-on information system dealing with actual or live frauds. Investigators both in BASIS and BFIS do seem handicapped by a reliance on exchanges of information derived manually".
Sixthly, it states:
"The amount of data that is held within the benefits system is immense. It is at present being garnered and assessed by a number of discrete organisations without a readily observable strategic framework".
210WH
The report went on to comment on some of the local organisational effects. It states:
"Each of the 400 or so [local] authorities is autonomous—lessons learnt by one may never be passed on to another … there is obviously no obvious route by which … practical use of good preventative intelligence may be disseminated more widely".
It also states:
"Equally there appears to be little intelligence interchange between local government and the BA.
WBS [Weekly Benefit Savings] stifles initiative, and creates a culture in which easy hits are encouraged to the detriment of professional investigative work".
It goes on:
"Against Housing Benefit fraud they [local authorities] are much less focused. Many authorities do not recognise it as a serious problem for them and others are not impelled by the financial regime or indeed enabled by the appropriate skills to actively pursue it as a matter of high priority".
Finally, it states:
"Organised fraud, especially the most serious is not a current priority of local government and in any revised system needs to become one. There is inconsistent and insufficiently co-ordinated practice on the use of intelligence to support the pursuit of organised fraud".
Those last half dozen quotes overlap with some of the Government's ideas, as the Minister will no doubt confirm later, but I thought that the first half dozen or so probably showed why the Government are uncomfortable with the report.
The thrust of the report's recommendations are aimed at consolidating fraud intelligence and investigation activities in a national structure, reporting to the Department of Social Security fraud strategy director rather than to Benefits Agency management. Such a co-ordinated approach to the fight against fraud should be seen as a welcome innovation, as under the current arrangements, potential frauds are often cross-referred between fragmented units of the Benefits Agency, with little or no action being taken due to conflicting priorities. That supports the recommendation that fraud intelligence should be removed from the Benefits Agency because that would permit national priorities to be set. Those are eminently sensible aims. To that purpose, the Scampion report's principle recommendations were as follows.
First, the report recommends the establishment of a single benefit investigation agency for Great Britain. The BIA would be created by merging the existing complement of BASIS with part of the existing complement of BFIS.
Secondly, the report recommends the establishment of a benefits intelligence directorate to bring together the intelligence work carried out within the Benefits Agency. The Secretary of State's response to that was to announce that a national intelligence unit was being created, but I understand that that is only a pilot body in the north west of England. It is difficult to see how the real benefits of a national intelligence unit will be achieved, or even tested, on a pilot basis in one part of the country. It will be interesting to hear what the Minister has to say about that.
Thirdly, the report calls for the establishment of regional anti-fraud partnerships between local authorities, the BIA and the BID. The Minister's original response to the Public Accounts Committee report touched on only a fraction of those ideas.

211WH
Fourthly, partnerships would be required, within a given time scale, to submit proposals to the DSS for dealing with organised fraud. Again, it will be interesting to hear what those proposals are.
The report then lists several supplementary recommendations, which are sensible and practical, so I shall put them on the record because it would be interesting to know the Government's opinion on them. It suggests that details of payee, amount and personal identifier should be added in coded form to girocheques, unless there are compelling reasons to the contrary. That seems to be a sensible idea. It suggests that a common baseline application form for council tax and housing benefit should be introduced. I know that some simplification of those forms is being undertaken, so perhaps the Minister will say something about that.
The report also recommends that a debate should be started on the balance between people's right to privacy and the state's need to protect public funds. Both this and the previous Government sidestepped that knotty issue. As something of a civil libertarian, I do not think the issue easy to resolve, but it is a great shame that the card system that the Government were to introduce crashed, and we were unable to have at least a voluntary smart card for benefits claimants. I would not force anyone to carry a card, but such a card would provide many honest people with a simpler, more straightforward mechanism for collecting their benefits, and it would have the added advantage of eradicating some fraud.
The report goes on:
"Investigation should be carried out into the possiblity of the DSS/BA joining the Credit Industry Fraud Avoidance Scheme."
That is a simple, sensible idea. After all, fraud is not confined to government or to welfare systems, and many private sector techniques, driven by englightened self-interest, may be of use in the public sector. The report also advocates
"a common prosecution policy between the Inland Revenue and DSS following the introduction of the Working Families Tax Credit."
I suspect that it would be rather a shock to the DSS to have an Inland Revenue style prosecution policy, as the latter is not known for its leniency. The final recommendation is that
"Consideration should be given to the expansion of asset recovery and confiscation of crime proceeds."
That seems sensible, although I am not sure of the Government's view.
Finally, I shall pre-empt one argument that the Government might put forward. The matching of Scampion's recommendations for a benefit investigation agency and a benefits intelligence directorate with the existing role of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate is at issue. The Scampion report makes little reference to the work of the BFI, but I do not believe that its recommendations, if adopted, would result in a duplication of effort. The BFI was created to undertake inspections of social security benefit adminstration and counter-fraud activity, and to identify, encourage and promote good practice. The proposed benefit investigation agency would provide a single institution dedicated to investigating all forms of fraud against benefits administered by the Benefits Agency. The benefits intelligence directorate would
212WH
have responsibility for supporting prevention and detection of fraud through the collection, analysis and dissemination of intelligence across the Benefits Agency.
Although there is some scope for exchange of information between the BFI and the two proposed new bodies, the BFI's predominant focus is on local authorities, rather than on the Benefits Agency. Under these proposals, the three organisations would complement one another, rather than duplicate functions. I hope that the Government will not argue that there will be duplication.
I thought it a good thing that the Government initiated the Scampion inquiry. The outcome, uncomfortable as it may be, is a rather good report. I hope that the Department will show a willingness to take on board those issues. Some of the proposals involve quite serious reorganisation, with parts of the Department and agencies losing some of their empires to other parts. As an ex-Minister, I know how hard such battles can be fought in Whitehall.
I ask the Minister, for whose forthright and practical approach to these matters I have great respect, to take these recommendations on board and to try to ensure that the best parts of the Scampion report—that is, most of it—comes into being. This is a big issue; it frustrated the previous Government, and will frustrate the present Government and many in the future. Initiatives have not always worked. However, that is not a reason to give up trying or applying pressure, because the benefit of succeeding will be better public service throughout, which we should all support.
10.8 am
Mr. Frank Field: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis). Now that he has found this Chamber, I hope that debates examining the evolution of the Government's counter-fraud strategy will be a regular feature of the rest of the Parliament.
I begin by recording my thanks to the Chairman and members of the Public Accounts Committee for the information that they regularly provide to Parliament on the administration of public moneys, and to Sir John Bourn and his staff for the role that they play with the PAC in making that information available. For proof of their assistance, one would have only to consult tomorrow's Hansard to see how dependent we have all been in our contributions on the information that the Public Accounts committee has made available to the House of Commons and the wider public.
I join in the debate for the same reason as the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and other hon. Members who wish to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker—because it is not a simple debate about those who are in favour of people claiming benefits as opposed to others who are against people claiming benefit and try to focus all their attention on the question of fraud. The British attitudes survey revealed that the vast majority of the electorate think that a considerable number of people who are eligible to claim benefit are not doing so, and are concerned about that, while almost an equal number believe at the same time that in large parts of the system it is too easy to defraud taxpayers. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I not only believe in public services, but believe that unless one garners taxpayers' support

213WH
by assuring them that their hard-earned money is not being squandered, wasted or fraudulently claimed, one allows attitudes to rock the very basis of the welfare state.
I welcome the fact that the Minister of State will respond to the debate, because in previous Parliaments he and I raised the issue of countering fraud. While it is, of course, good for people to change their views and join what is now the majority position—that countering fraud is a major issue—he is one of those who raised it when it was not fashionable and sought to strengthen the previous Government's counter-fraud strategy. The Minister may not always be supported by the Department in the way that he should be. He is nothing but a total professional as a Minister, and will of course deny that and say what wonderful support he has from his officials. However, the recording of certain views in public debate can help strengthen the position of those whose position we wish to see strengthened.
With that in mind, I shall refer to the Green Paper on countering fraud—"Beating Fraud is Everyone's Business"—in which the Government signed up to four benchmarks. I hope that the Minister, if he cannot reply to my questions immediately, will give a public reply at a later stage. The four benchmarks in the Green Paper were as follows. First, it stated that the Government would be committed to measure fraud to a high degree of accuracy and report annually. I and many taxpayers would be interested to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on that front. Secondly, it gave a commitment to check and to clear bogus national insurance numbers. What is the timetable for the completion of that benchmark? Thirdly, it stated that the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate and the Audit Commission would ruthlessly work together to counter fraud. What progress has been made on bringing together those two important organisations in furthering the Government's counter-fraud strategy? Fourthly, it promised a review of the criminal and civil law and the extent to which it helps or hinders tackling fraud. The White Paper was totally silent on that, as on many other of the benchmarks in the Green Paper. What progress can the Minister report in that respect?
When, as a Minister, I discovered that there was not to be a benefit review of family credits, on the basis that the Department was getting shot of the benefit and the Treasury would be assuming responsibility, I counter-ordered that decision and asked that the benefit review take place. When I appeared before the Social Security Committee, I realised that that decision had been countermanded. Was the matter brought to the Minister's attention? Did he take that decision, or was it taken by officials without his knowledge? On leaving office, I assumed that the review would take place for the very reasons that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden listed.
Reports from counter-fraud officers demonstrated the problems associated with family credit fraud. In respect of new benefits, the Government aimed to design out opportunities for fraud. To prevent working families tax credit fraud, it was important to discover the extent of family credit fraud and the means by which it was being conducted.
214WH
I was closely involved with the security of the national insurance number system, so I asked that we should check the references and identity of some key members of staff. Has that programme begun? Did the Minister know of that decision, or was he bypassed? Although it is important to engage people to shop cheats, and so on, I hope that the Government do not think that merely starting another such campaign in the months ahead would constitute a proper counter-fraud strategy.
I realise, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that many others wish to catch your eye, so I shall deal briefly with the question of housing benefit. Thanks to the efforts of the Public Accounts Committee, it is estimated that fraud costs £840 million, but that estimate may be 30 per cent. out in either direction. The Government promised to report on fraud annually and measure it accurately, but the error rate has increased from 16 to 29 per cent. Two thirds of local authorities do not make proper efforts to recover wrong payments, and one third make no effort at all. For example, 161 authorities have yet to participate in the "do not redirect" service for housing benefit cheques. According to the Public Accounts Committee, perhaps as many as £50,000 a week per local authority could be saved if a non-redirect policy were implemented, which could constitute a saving of as much as £400 million a year. What progess have the Government made on that?
In respect of housing benefit forms, the BFI states:
"We also found examples of more serious problems, such as claim forms not being designed to record a national insurance number, claimant's income or liability to payment."
We are talking about a means-tested benefit, yet local authorities are issuing forms that do not record the income of those who will be paid benefit. That beggars belief. We know that 143 local authorities made no prosecutions for housing benefit fraud during the year on which the Public Accounts Committee reported. Of those, 57 could not be bothered to tell the Government whether they had a prosecution policy. There is also evidence of councillors or workers in another 57 authorities fraudulently claiming housing benefit, not one of whom was prosecuted. If that does not send out a powerful message that the Government are not serious about countering fraud, what does?
I end by suggesting nine reforms, simply on housing benefit, that I would like to see. First, time has run out for local authorities voluntarily to sign up to the policy of not redirecting to safe addresses fraudulently claimed housing benefit cheques. Either a tough national policy should be implemented within a couple of months or the Secretary of State must ask district auditors to surcharge councils that continue to send on cheques to fraudsters.
Secondly, how long will the Government allow local authorities to administer a means-tested benefit such as housing benefit without being sure that we are properly collecting income from those claiming the benefit?
Thirdly, will the Government give a timetable in which they expect every council seriously to recoup overpayments? Again, will the Secretary of State ask district auditors to surcharge councils if no policy is in place to recoup taxpayers' money on that front?
Fourthly, we know that local authorities have limited time in which to follow up some of the overpayments. What progress are the Government making to ensure that the private sector is used to help to recoup taxpayers' money that should not have been overpaid?

215WH
Fifthly, will the Government give a commitment that councillors or council workers found to be fraudulently claiming housing benefit will automatically be prosecuted?
Sixthly, the BFI's recommendations are not fully implemented in regard to housing benefit contracts. Where they are not, will the Government ask the Secretary of State to consider taking the operation of housing benefit away from those local authorities and putting it out to tender? The Government are, thankfully, developing public service agreements in national government. Is there not a case for trying to build on that success to ensure that there is a public service agreement with local authorities about the running of housing benefit?
The eighth suggestion is to make landlord benefit fraud a key fight. When the permanent secretary appeared before the Public Accounts Committee, she said that Scampion would deal with that. He does not make the sort of recommendations that are required. The Green Paper made three. It suggested, first, that there should be a register of landlords, secondly, that the Government should report as part of their annual audit measuring landlord fraud and, thirdly, that specialist teams should be set up to tackle landlord fraud. Will my right hon. Friend be able at some stage to report progress on that?
My last suggestion is this. My right hon. Friend is one of the most able of our Ministers at judging the public mood. Does he agree that a way to gain further support from the public would be to link specific gains from countering fraud to public programmes that taxpayers wish to see advanced? If that is his view, will he soon make progress in public on that front?
I look forward to the contribution of other hon. Members and the reply of my right hon. Friend the Minister.
10.24 am
Mr. Steve Webb: It is a privilege to follow the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) and the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who are distinguished parliamentarians and experts in this area. The Chamber is grateful to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee for raising this matter in his personal capacity.
I want to deal with some of the broader issues that are prompted by the detailed comments that we have heard. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is right to draw attention to the scale of the problem. The alleged size of benefit fraud is larger than the entire budget of some Government Departments. One can imagine that some of the Minister's colleagues would kill for a share of the fraud money. It is therefore right to stress the urgency of the issue. Although the Government talk a good game, they are not delivering. Year after year, the accounts are not wholeheartedly accepted. While it would be wrong to say that nothing is being done, little is being achieved.
The right hon. Gentleman referred to designing out fraud, and cited the working families tax credit. If the
216WH
Government cannot reduce the risk of fraud when they introduce a new, renamed or slightly restructured benefit, what hope is there? It is hard enough to get rid of existing benefit fraud. Apart from the fact that working families tax credit is paid through the employer's payroll —an open invitation to fraud—the child care tax credit element poses an additonal problem. Whereas it used to go to a handful of people on family credit, it will now go to many thousands of people. That opens up a whole new vista of unexplored fraud. Up to £150 a week of child care costs can be allowed in the benefit calculation, and the claimant can benefit by up to £5,000 a year. That is a whole new burgeoning industry, with which the Government have not got to grips.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the need for simplicity, which, one feels, is anathema to the Department of Social Security. Consider what the Department has done with regard to support for children, which used to be relatively straightforward. In addition to child benefit, there is now the working families tax credit, with its various credits, including child care credits. There will now be a children's tax credit, which is different from the child care tax credit and the working families tax credit. That is on top of child benefit. Apparently, all that will be streamlined in the future. The Government have introduced a more complex system, which, allegedly, they will simplify later. It will be interesting to see if they ever get round to simplification.
Some of the benefit fraud statistics are interesting. Pensioners are included among those reported as fraudulent claimants, and the Government are increasingly using means-tested approaches to support pensioners. If the Government want a simplified approach, they might adopt one of the policies that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead and I have advocated—the targeting of pensioners through age additions on the state pension. The attraction of that method is that the only way people could commit fraud would be by falsifying their age. Intelligent targeting would be possible without the palaver of means testing, and using universal benefits. That kind of thinking is anathema to the Government, who say, "That's not well targeted enough," and then pay £100 to every pensioner in the land. That is not a joined-up strategy.
The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned the issue of data matching, and the fundamental conflict in having one big computer that contained all our information, which might be an effective deterrent to fraud, but gave rise to certain worries. I probably stray well beyond the party line by being sympathetic towards the idea of one big computer. It is astonishing that information of the same kind is gathered all over the place but never brought together. Most people would feel that the scale of the problem and the sums that we are talking about require desperate solutions. I sometimes feel that data protection legislation has gone too far. It has prevented many developments that it was not intended to affect. I would be interested to hear the Government's thoughts on that issue.

217WH
My overall perspective on the matter is that the Government make grand claims but achieve little. One can always tell when the Department of Social Security is achieving nothing because it issues lots of press releases. On benefit fraud, there were three press releases in the second half of January, including one on the area benefit review, which was issued on 28 January. It said:
"The percentage amount of benefit overpaid"—
on income support—
"due to fraud and customer error has fallen by 0.4 per cent. between the periods October 1997–September 1998 and April 1998 to March 1999. This reduction is not statistically significant."
The hon. Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) drew attention to that in the House the other day. In relation to the jobseeker's allowance, the press release states:
"The percentage of benefit overpaid … due to fraud and customer error has fallen by 0.2 per cent.… This reduction is not statistically significant".
On the same day, the Secretary of State said:
"We are winning the battle against fraud".
"Not statistically significant" could mean that the figures have gone up—we cannot be sure that they have gone down. There is a discrepancy between the Government's rhetoric on fraud and their delivery—or lack thereof.
I draw attention to a telling paragraph in the Public Accounts Committee report. Every year the Government announce that several billion pounds have been saved on fraud, but each year the figures for fraud never appear to go down. A marvellous paragraph in the report states:
"We asked the Agency why, given savings … of £2.5 billion over 3 years, the level of fraud on income support and jobseeker's allowance remained at over £1.5 billion".
The agency gave a rather coy answer—it said that it viewed
"the stock of fraud as the better and more important figure on which to target their actions."
That is a euphemism. One wearies of hearing grandiose claims about the sums that will be saved. The estimates of stock of fraud are relentless and do not go down. We should target that matter.
I conclude by proposing a way forward to the Minister. The right hon. Member for Birkenhead mentioned public service agreements. In relation to the Department of Social Security, I regard those agreements as toothless. In view of the Government's attachment to performance-related pay, will the Minister agree to tie his salary to his ability to make a concrete achievement in cutting benefit fraud?
10.31 am
Mr. Eric Pickles: I am grateful to follow three such distinguished hon. Members. The concluding suggestion of the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) might be a little unfair—the Minister may be drawing his pension by the time that we know whether we have been successful in this regard, and it would be wrong to rob a pensioner of his income.
218WH
I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) on raising this important matter in this Chamber. I agree with the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), who commended the Public Accounts Committee's report. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden was speaking in a personal capacity, but the report is a welcome and helpful addition to our efforts to fight fraud.
The report arrives at an appropriate moment. Since early December, there have been four reports on fraud: the National Audit Office appropriation accounts for 1998–99; the Audit Commission's "Protecting the public purse: ensuring probity in local government", to which the right hon. Member for Birkenhead referred; Sir John Scampion's report on organised benefit fraud—my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden discussed its 19 recommendations—and the Public Accounts Committee report.
As has already been said, no one really knows the true extent of fraud in the system. My right hon. Friend referred to estimates of between £3 million and £7 million, but the right hon. Member for Birkenhead suggested that the figure might be a little higher than that. Whatever the figure, fraud is rife and endemic in the system.
The National Audit Office report found that there was an increase of £636 million in the 1998–99 accounts, which represents 5 per cent. of the total expenditure on income support. Our first task should be to admit that the situation is deteriorating. I endorse the comments of the hon. Member for Northavon, who said that there was too much short-term spin in the system and that we needed a strategy to ensure that the tough rhetoric matched reality.
I, too, was struck by the press release of 28 January, which was headed "Darling welcomes successes in fighting benefit fraud". It states:
"Today's figures show that our tougher anti-fraud measures are beginning to bite … we are winning the fight against fraud."
However, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the Office for National Statistics said that reductions in both areas were not statistically significant. He is therefore right to say that matters could have gone either way. It is no use pretending that things are happening when they are not, as that makes the service look ridiculous and undermines attacks on organised fraud.
There are two main problems: complexity and hands-off approach to the strategy. The Public Accounts Committee referred to complexity in its report published on 13 January. Paragraph 8.2 on page vi states:
"A key cause of error and fraud in income support is the complexity of the regulations, and the Benefit Agency told us that without simplification 10 per cent of payments would always be wrong. This is poor administration, which creates confusion, uncertainty for those most in need, extra costs and high levels of debt, much of which is not collectable."
Leaving complexity to one side, I shall now tackle the absence of a hands-on approach. My right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden talked about John Scampion's report, which deals with the lack of a sensible, practitioners' approach to the problem. I shall not go through the recommendations in detail, as my right hon. Friend did that extremely well. However, I shall emphasise a few points made in the report.

219WH
The report says that there was no strategic discussion between the benefits fraud investigation and the Benefits Agency security investigation service. Fragmenting resulted and organised frauds were not pursued. Page 16 states:
"There is insufficient flexibility in the total response to serious frauds."
It also states:
"There is an unevenness of response to serious fraud and organised frauds in different parts of the country".
Summing up the position, on page 18 it states:
"One immediate effect is the provision of a basic … information system dealing with actual or live frauds. Investigators both in BASIS and BFIS do seem handicapped by a reliance on exchanges of information derived manually".
The report paints a frightening picture of organised fraud, drawing attention to the fact that organised fraud is not being pursued. It also demonstrates something that I have discovered in visits to housing benefit offices and the Benefits Agency—local authorities rarely exchange information between themselves or with the Benefits Agency. Different housing benefit forms are used by different local authorities. Consequently, when one authority finds a loophole and closes it by changing its form, that is not necessarily passed on to other authorities.
Attempts to tackle fraud include the recent Fraudweb conference. However, there is no systematic method for exchanging information. My right hon. Friend pointed out that we must be careful how computers exchanged information between various groups. That is right. It is not just a question of computers. Much of the investigation of housing benefit fraud is done manually. It is recorded manually. There is no exchange. It is a question of chasing paper around, which is quite a problem in the system. Even at the very top there is, in the words of Scampion, an over-reliance on manual systems.
It is amazing that the Government accepted only one of Scampion's recommendations and, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, it is only a pilot in a region. There are good and compelling reasons for having a national intelligence unit. I join my right hon. Friend in saying that the benefits of a national system cannot be understood by looking at it purely regionally. National fraud is precisely that. The Minister kindly organised an interesting and helpful seminar for spokesmen on social security at which we saw some of the instruments of fraud and the ways in which people went around the system. They were ingenious, and it was clear that there is quite a lot of national fraud. People organise in several districts. Without a national organisation exchanging information on fraud, there is no real possibility of tackling the problem.
We believe that we should go further. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Mr. Willetts) recently announced a change in Conservative policy. We would institute a single benefits investigation squad in conjunction with the national intelligence unit and we would look towards a dedicated anti-fraud partnership between local authorities, the Benefits Agency, the intelligence unit and the squad to ensure coordination. The chances are that, if someone is committing a fraud on one benefit, he will commit it on another benefit controlled by the agency.
220WH
It is important to ensure that there is still prosecution. It is also important to guard the gateways to benefit. Not everyone who gets involved in fraud starts out with that intention. Sometimes they just fall into temptation. They may delay the announcement of a bereavement or the fact that a son or daughter has reached a certain age. Each week they find it increasingly difficult to admit that they have committed a fraud. That is why the points that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead made about the working families tax credit are so important. Unless we are careful, we will have a system in which, to use his words, people are caught in a spider's web of corruption.
Fraud takes away valuable resources that can be better spent on those in need. It creates a climate of distrust among those receiving benefit. It robs the Government, the taxpayer and the poor in equal measure. It is time to hear how the Government plan to build an effective, hands-on anti-fraud strategy.
10.44 am
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Mr. Jeff Rooker): I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will accept that I cannot do justice to the points that have been raised this morning in 16 minutes. Unusually for me, I undertake to write to them on the points that I do not cover. It places a burden on the Department, but I shall not leave anything unanswered. One is always warned as a Minister not to make too many commitments to write, but anything that I cannot answer today will be answered in correspondence.
I welcome the debate on our strategy for tackling fraud and I will outline the action taken by the Government so far. No single initiative or decision can assist in solving the whole problem. The operation needs to cover a wide front. We have to tackle instrument of payment fraud involving giro cheques, or the benefit books, which is similar in design to, and reminiscent of, the ration book of the early 1940s, although that did not have a bar code. Both are open to the same sort of fiddling that I have seen myself. My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) may know of cases in which no one has bothered to check information simply because a part-used payment book has been presented. That is one reason for changing to automatic credit transfer.
There is no point being wishy-washy about this. When ACT becomes the main method of payment, it will open up avenues of fraud not necessarily prevalent today. We must design and build in for that when we make the change. This is part of the current planning process. Instrument of payment fraud is serious. I do not wish to fall out with anyone, but we have enough problems with some of the porkies being told by some subpostmasters. I have been at the Department of Social Security for only seven months, less than half the time that my right hon. Friend was there, and I have just had drawn to my attention prosecution cases that made the press the previous day. Not a month has gone by without my being told of matters involving post office employees, the subpostmaster or his family, relating to instrument of payment difficulties—or fraud—that have led to prosecution. Those 18,000 cases are a tiny percentage, but the scope for such fraud is enormous among organised crime and what the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis) might term amateur crime. Both are bad, but I understand the right hon. Gentleman's point.

221WH
In 1997, two out of five income support claims—40 per cent.—were paid without sufficient evidence of identity. We estimate that the proposed changes—some of which were initiated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead—will save more than £1 billion during the life of this Parliament because of strengthened checks before money is paid. The national benefit intelligence unit will help combat organised fraud. There seems to be some misunderstanding, the reason for which I shall discuss with colleagues. We have not promulgated the totality of the Scampion report, nor have we dismissed it; far from it. I feel sure that the generality of John Scampion's suggestions will become a reality, although perhaps not all in precisely the way he suggested because government machinery issues are involved.
There was a reference to a pilot in the north-west. There is no piloting of the national benefit intelligence unit. There is nothing to be done. That was a misunderstanding. The pilot due to be held in the northwest is effectivley an exercise to discover how we can change public attitudes to benefit fraud. It is not the hotline, which is a separate exercise, but an attempt to change attitudes. Drink driving was socially acceptable 10 or 20 years ago; today it is not. Public attitudes have changed. But that pilot has nothing to do with the Scampion report.
The Department is training staff to counter fraud. I was present the other week at what I might call the passing-out parade of the first 87 accredited DSS counter-fraud officers, who underwent a course accredited by one of the universities, involving separate trainers and individual anti-crime companies. A further 1,000 are due to come through the system. The grand total is approximately 3,000. Those officers are given proper training in a part of their profession. Part of the Scampion proposals were for a professional head of counter-fraud activity. We need to invest in this important element and take it forward.
As members of the Committee have said, housing benefit is a separate issue. It beggars belief that each local authority designs its own claim form. I regret to say that I served on the Standing Committee which scrutinised the legislation setting up housing benefit all those years ago. The attitude of some local authorities is that it is not their money, so it does not matter, all they are doing is administering Government money. They must get their act together with council tax benefit and housing benefit. We are about to screw them down even more with severe financial penalties for not following through the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports and for not following the housing benefit rules, and not even following the law on housing benefit, which came in last September, which makes it a statutory requirement to obtain a claimant's national insurance number. Local government is at risk of losing that role. That is not a threat, it is inevitable, because the House will not stand for it. About £11 billion of taxpayers' money is being paid out, but some authorities are not taking it seriously because it is not local taxpayers' money and therefore not part of their budget. We have a series of measures, some of which we have already introduced and some of
222WH
which we are about to bring forward, which will put the screws on those parts of local government that are not taking this seriously.
It is also unacceptable that we are not being given sufficient information about details of prosecution. At the moment, the Royal Mail "Do not redirect" service is still voluntary, but it is paid for by the DSS. Some local authorities said that they were not doing it because they had to run down their stock of envelopes. That is a pathetic excuse from professional local government officers. All they have to do is reprint the front of the envelopes; there is no problem with that. They must take that and other matters much more seriously.
Data sharing is a sensitive issue. I do not see it as difficult. The Data Protection Act 1998 must be followed at all times. I do not think that fraudsters, the public or even hon. Members fully appreciate the scale of data sharing that is going on within government, between the Department of Social Security, the Inland Revenue and local authorities. However, it needs to be extended and that is under active consideration, even to the extent of making statutory changes.
Data matching is dependent on comupters and, as was suggested, the computers in the DSS are rubbish. They were bought off the shelf and use old technology, so they did not do the job that they were intended to do. Nevertheless, there are data matching programs. We have supplied local authorities with 400 remote access computer terminals so that they can see what benefits we are paying to a claimant and thus whether they can verify the claim that is being made. That is an important element. We are also getting full reports from the Inland Revenue, particularly on the working families tax credit, an issue to which I shall return in correspondence. National data matching referrals were issued from 31 January and we began to retrieve the DSS Inland Revenue data shortly after the transfer of responsibilities last October.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead asked about the family credit review decision. It looks as though it was made without ministerial clearance, but I am not sure when. One must remember that there were two other Ministers between my right hon. Friend and me. I personally do not recall that decision, but my officials are checking on it. Let us be clear. The working families tax credit is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is not classed as a benefit; it is wholly within the Treasury. Nevertheless, we are obtaining that information to cross-check with DSS benefits because that is important. P46 data—that is the form for new employees who cannot provide their new employer with a P45—is also being transferred from the National Insurance Contributions Office, which is another crucial factor, and the Inland Revenue is passing on details of the new construction industry scheme. We will have the first batch of data from that this summer.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden mentioned identity fraud. When I arrived at the DSS last summer from the Ministry of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food, I was distressed to learn that fraud based on "The Day of the Jackal" had not been dealt with. That was recommended in a White Paper on registration in 1991, if I remember correctly. Everything

223WH
in that White Paper was accepted and implemented, including new rules for getting married down a coal mine.
I had personal constituency experience of a "The Day of the Jackal" fraud. Twins who were born 30 years ago lived for only a day, and 27 years later, someone knocked on the parents' door saying that someone claiming to be their daughter was being held in a detention centre. One can imagine how the parents felt. That fraud followed the book exactly. I went through that episode chapter and verse with the previous Conservative Prime Minister. Internal discussions are still proceeding and I am pressing to have the matter settled. It is a gap in our identity fraud countermeasures.
I shall not have time to deal in detail with all the issues raised. I can tell my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead that we are spending considerable time scrutinising the management of the national insurance number system—both in the Department and in government with senior colleagues. Some problems are not clear cut, but we have reduced by half the number of people who issue national insurance numbers. I shall have to write to my right hon. Friend about checking individuals. Issuing numbers is now tightly controlled in local offices and it is half of what it was in terms of physical access.
As I said earlier, local authority claim forms were required by law from September last year and we are financially penalising those who failed to meet that requirement. It will not look good for the local authorities, their leaders or chief executives if their act is not cleaned up ethically, especially when the legislation currently in another place comes into force. Information on income must be obtained unless the local authority can acquire it from the DSS via remote access terminals. Otherwise, there is no legal authority to pay a means-tested benefit—it is as simple as that. Authorities will leave themselves open to financial penalties from the Government. Currently, around 250 authorities have adopted the verification framework. That is not good enough: they all should.
All Benefit Fraud Inspectorate reports are published. Only the odd sentence about how to commit a fraud is omitted, for obvious reasons. They are all published on
224WH
the internet as a guide to good practice for local authorities. Late last year, we requested the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate to investigate the 30 top-spending authorities on housing benefit as a special one-off, which will be completed by this summer.
Insufficient action has been taken on published reports, which is distressing. We have to be careful to follow legal procedures in taking action against local authorities. When the benefit fraud inspection report has been published, authorities can comment on it and we can check whether they are actually carrying out their action plan. We have to go through those stages, after which some legal sanctions are available to us. We are now close to implementing action in that respect.
We wish to work with local authorities as partners, but we must make it clear that we are talking about our money—the Government's money—for which Ministers are accountable to this House of Commons. Local government is not responsible for it; we are, and quite right too. We have to remind authorities that, if the system is not working properly, they stand a good chance in the long term of losing that element of their finances.
Some hon. Members mentioned global figures. There is fraud, official error and claimant error—and we must try to separate them. Some fraud is organised and we are spending £2 billion a week on benefits. That money is open to systematic attack by organised criminals. The Department is carrying out a massive operation to buttress and secure the sytstem against that.
As I said to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead, we shall report back to the House of Commons on what we have been able to achieve. I am more than happy to ensure that every question that has been asked this morning is answered in writng. I know that colleagues will come back to me if they are not satisfied.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): In the absence of the Minister for the next debate, I shall suspend the sitting until he arrives.
11 am
Sitting suspended.

European Union Charter
11.3 am
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Frank Cook): The delayed start to the debate is regrettable; nevertheless I wish Mr. Win Griffiths well.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for the fact that the sitting had to be suspended. I was addressing a group that came over on the state visit of the Queen of Denmark. I apologise for the fact that I was not able to be here earlier.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Vaz.
11.4 am
Mr. Win Griffiths: I am pleased that I have this opportunity to debate the draft charter of fundamental rights of the European Union in this Chamber and to give a progress report to the House as its member on the convention drafting the charter. I was prompted to initiate the debate by one or two articles that appeared in the press between the convention's first business meeting, which took place just before Christmas, and the February meeting. Europhobes had once again dreamed up a fantasy island of fear about the charter; they wanted to damn and attack the Government and the European Union. Our debate is a good opportunity to set the record straight and to give Members a flavour of what the charter is about.
The process started at the Cologne summit. In a declaration made at the end of the summit, the European Council said:
"Fundamental rights applicable at the Union level should be consolidated in a Charter and thereby made more evident."
An annexe to that declaration stated:
"Protection of fundamental rights is a founding principle of the Union and an indispensable prerequisite for her legitimacy. The obligation of the Union to respect fundamental rights has been confirmed and defined by the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. There appears to be need, at the present stage of the Union's development, to establish a Charter of fundamental rights in order to make their overriding importance and relevance more visible to the Union's citizens".
The statement continued, stating that the charter was based upon the constitutional traditions of member states and general principles of Community law. It stated also that rights under the charter should apply only to European Union citizens and that the charter should take into account the European social charter, the Community charter of fundamental social rights of workers and the European convention on human rights.
A unique body was set up to draft the document before the Council meets in December 2000. The idea is that the European Council will propose to the European Parliament and the Commission that they and the Council should solemnly proclaim a European charter of fundamental rights. Consideration would then have to be given to whether, and if so how, the charter should be integrated into the treaties.
The convention will include representatives of each of the 15 Governments of the member states of the European Union, one representative of the Commission, 16 Members of the European Parliament
226WH
and 30 Members of national Parliaments. The United Kingdom will be represented by me, speaking for the House of Commons, and Lord Bowness, who speaks for the Conservative party in the House of Lords. A system of alternates will be in operation if either I or Lord Bowness cannot attend—the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Chidgey) will take my place, and Baroness Howells of St. Davids will attend instead of Lord Bowness. Both alternates are, of course, members of the Liberal Democrat party.
The European Court of Justice has the right to two observers, one of whom will be a member of the European Court of Human Rights. In setting up the convention, the Council specifically asked that the Committee of the Regions, the Economic and Social Committee and the European ombudsman should be invited to give their views to the convention. That was done at our last meeting. Other bodies, social groups, experts and non-governmental organisations have been invited to express their views, and hearings will be held. The Royal National Institute for the Blind has been quick off the mark in sending me a copy of the statement that it gave to the President in office of the Council of Ministers on 22 July 1999, shortly after the Cologne announcement about the rights that disabled people should have.
We have already held two meetings; the first was on 17 and 18 December 1999, the second on 1 and 2 February 2000. We hope that the convention will meet as a full body in March, June, September and October and that it will meet as a working group later this month, twice in March, April, May and June, once in July and September and perhaps in October. That is a rigorous set-up, involving 11 or perhaps 12 meetings of the working group and four meetings of the convention. A lot of work will have to be done in the coming eight or nine months. Before each meeting of the convention as a working group, a drafting committee will meet. It will consist, in effect, of the executive body of the convention.
I return to the remit of the convention. Our purpose is to focus on the fundamental rights enjoyed by all European citizens and residents while also referring to rights bestowed by the other conventions, charters and so on to which member states are parties and of which the European convention on human rights is the outstanding example. First, the charter could emphasise communal values within the European Union. Secondly, it could raise awareness of existing fundamental civil, political and other rights that support human dignity, and oppose all types of discrimination and xenophobia. Thirdly, it could bring out the essential interface between rights and responsibilities for both individuals and Governments. Fourthly, it could declare boldy to European citizens their right to participate in the democratic process, to live, study and work, to provide and receive services and to set up businesses anywhere in the European Union.
The Heads of Government have made it clear that the charter should take account of economic and social rights, as intended in the European social charter and the Community charter on the fundamental social rights of workers. The ambition of the convention should be to highlight clearly the fundamental rights already deriving from treaties and from the Community law system, including case law built up in the European Court of

227WH
Justice. It should not go beyond that or render void existing national and international law concerning fundamental rights.
It is clear that the charter is not meant at this stage to be a legal document and that such an option of inclusion in the treaties will be considered by the Council later. Despite that undoubted clarity of remit, there has been debate from day one in the convention on whether the charter process is sufficient to meet the challenges facing an ever-expanding Union. Some people see it as an opportunity to create an all-embracing and justiciable treaty-incorporated charter that will take the Union into new waters. The most ambitious protagonists of that view are Members of the European Parliament, most of whom—I speak as a former MEP—see the charter as an opportunity to enlarge and strengthen the European Union and to enhance its citizens' rights. Some MEPs are happy to take up the challenge of the Council's charter remit. A few would like to use the exercise to regain for nation states some of the sovereignty that they have pooled within the European Union. The majority, however, seek a charter that will at least be a protocol of the treaty but which will preferably be a legally binding document that is incorporated into the treaty and which covers all aspects of European Union activity, including common foreign and security policy, justice and home affairs and institutions such as Europol. Of the elected members of the convention, the European Parliament has the most opportunity, time and resources to develop an institutional view of the charter. Six of its committees are providing opinions for the report being prepared by the committee on constitutional affairs.
While the European Parliament wants to travel further beyond the remit of the Council than anyone else, it has allies who share its view that the charter must be legally binding. For example, the Council of Europe wants its own convention to be incorporated into Community law. The European Court of Human Rights would then be responsible for it. Not surprisingly, the court takes the same view. The European ombudsman wants the charter to be legally binding, as do the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions.
On the other side of the argument are the European Council, the European Commission, most representatives of national Parliaments, and the European Ministers of the German federal states. The scene develops continually and we shall receive many more views in the coming months.
That might become the defining issue of our discussions on the convention. Views have already been expressed on both sides of the argument; convention members have received enough views to fill a book from individuals and organisations on the contents and nature of the charter.
Most members of the convention wish to carry out its remit as provided by the Council. That seems a significant and ambitious task when one bears in mind the paucity of European citizens' knowledge of the European Union. We want to produce a clear statement of fundamental European Union rights, preferably on no more than two sides of an A4 sheet of paper—a formidable task. To give hon. Members a flavour of the rights, I have written—on two sides of an A4 sheet—some of the possible inclusions. Examples are the dignity of the human person, the right to life, liberty and
228WH
security, access to justice and procedural rights with no retroactive criminal law, respect for privacy and family life, freedom to found a family, freedom of conscience, thought and religion, and freedom of expression.
Some of the rights are fundamental and we can all agree on them. However, should we include a right to a healthy environment, or is that just a worthy political objective? Might consumer rights be included? Are the rights to safety and health, to fair remuneration, to paid holidays, to a pension and to training at work and to social security fundamental, or are they matters that Governments and political parties have as worthy objectives, which should not be included in such a declaration?
EU citizens might be said to have specific rights. Those might include freedom of movement and of residence, the ability to vote and to stand in European and local elections, rights to diplomatic and consulate protection, to petition the European Parliament, to apply to the European ombudsman, not to be subject to discrimination, to have equal access to the Community civil service and the right to write to and to receive letters from the European Commission and its institutions in one's mother tongue. There is a raft of possibilities for discussion. All my examples, and many more rights that I have not mentioned, can be referred back to a treaty, convention or charter to which the European Union, or its member states, has signed.
There will be problems to overcome. There might be an issue of the fundamental rights of non-citizens who fall within the scope of European Union legislation, such as workers from countries outside the Union. We must also remember that the Council might be minded to incorporate the charter into the treaty at a later stage. The charter should, perhaps, be a two-phase document. One phase could include the clear, concise and crucial statement of rights to which I have referred; the second could be a more detailed document, providing the relevant treaty, convention and charter references from which the fundamental rights were derived. Although the charter may not be a justiciable document, European Union citizens will be able to find out, by referring to the back-up document, what parts of the treaty and other documents may give them recourse to law.
However challenging the task may be, it will not be enough for those who want to create a legally binding charter immediately, going beyond the current competencies of the European Union to create an all-singing, all-dancing, all-embracing charter of fundamental rights. If time allows, the convention could consider, in a separate document, strongly perceived gaps and shortcomings in current enforceable fundamental rights in the European Union—an annexe of aspirations, so to speak. The two issues need to be clearly separated. I look forward to the convention's completing, in the next eight months, its primary task of drawing up a charter of fundamental rights of the European Union, declaring to all its citizens the rights that they hold under the treaties and other instruments of the European Union and its member states.
At this point I would have mentioned some of the fundamental statements made by key players in the convention process, but because many hon. Members obviously want to take part in the debate, I shall sit down and listen keenly.
11.21 am
Ms Jenny Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing this Adjournment debate. The issue may not be the stuff of headlines—"EU proposes charter of fundamental rights"—but it is important and needs airing. We need to be rigorous in scrutinising the purpose of the charter and its implications.
I do not regard myself as a Europhobe in my own party or by anyone's parliamentary standards. I am an enthusiastic supporter of human rights. On the face of it, the European Union intends by the charter to make the issue of human rights more visible to citizens of member states and thereby to raise the profile of human rights protection. I am sure that we all enthusiastically support that aim, particularly since the passing of the Human Rights Act 1998. However, the issue is controversial.
The nub of the matter is that we already have a European convention on human rights. It was drawn up 50 years ago, mainly by British lawyers. The European Court of Human Rights has 50 years of experience and expertise and has amassed considerable case law. We send to the Council of Europe a sizeable United Kingdom delegation, which works hard and is well respected, led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis).
The charter was debated on 25 January at the last meeting of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly, and a clear position was set out. The Select Committee on European Scrutiny has taken a keen interest. It spent two days in Brussels in December, and took evidence from several key players in the drafting of the charter.
Several important questions need answers. First, what will be the status of the proposed charter? My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend began to deal with the issue, but it is worrying that although a drafting body is to work intensively for eight months, it is still unclear whether the resulting charter will be legally binding. If it will, thereby enabling citizens of European Union member states to take grievances or breaches of fundamental rights to the European Court of Justice, there will be two courts in Europe that deal with human or fundamental rights. I am not a lawyer, but will not that lead to confusion and competition between the two courts? Human rights protection should not be a matter of competition. If the ultimate aim of the EU is to write the charter into a treaty, it can do that simply by taking up the invitation that the Council of Europe's parliamentary assembly extended to it on 25 January this year to incorporate the European convention on human rights into a Community treaty.
Two other issues have important implications. First, the proposed charter could send out the signal that we are creating a two-tier system of human rights protection within Europe. The Council of Europe, with 41 members, has a much larger membership than the EU. Even with the proposed EU enlargement, EU membership could appear to provide a superior protection to the remaining 26 members of the Council of Europe. In the context of a wider Europe in which we are trying to incorporate many eastern European countries, it would not be wise to advocate such divisive
230WH
action. The implementation of human rights should not be a matter of competition between the EU and the Council of Europe.
The second issue raises the question of what the charter says about the Council of Europe. What are we to make of what is going on? What signals does it send out? Although the issue has not been readily picked up by the national press, on 8 February The Independent carried an article on the charter. In the first paragraph, its legal affairs correspondent described the charter as replacing
"the outdated European Convention on Human Rights."
Although that is the correspondent's reading of what is going on, it is interesting that a serious newspaper should choose to print that opinion.
Mr. Win Griffiths: That was one reason why I wanted the debate. The claim was outrageous and far from anything that had been discussed. One of the charter's great sensitivities is how to ensure that the European convention on human rights remains a pre-eminent player. We are looking at the issue of signing up so that the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg continues to play a pre-eminent role.
Ms Jones: I thank my hon. Friend for making that statement, but even if the correspondent in The Independent is wrong, the paper has a wide readership. Its interpretation of why the charter has been drafted showed how it decided to read the signals.
In conclusion, I am not a Europhobe, but we need to question why the Government need to sign up to a charter. We have the Human Rights Act 1998 and are active in the Council of Europe. I am not convinced that the charter will build on our experience or benefit UK citizens any more than they benefit from the 1998 Act. We need to tread cautiously.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) I must advise hon. Members that an informal protocol allows Front-Bench spokesman to use the final 30 minutes to respond to the debate. The hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), who introduced the debate, considerately curtailed his comments to make time for other hon. Members. I know that several right hon. Members wish to make a contribution, so I ask them to bear it in mind that we have only about 30 minutes for the debate.
11.30 am
Mr. Christopher Gill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on obtaining the debate. I applaud the fact that he is obviously ahead of the game because as yet awareness of this topic is low. I can comply with your request to be brief, Mr. Cook, because the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) has covered much of the ground that I intended to cover. I wanted to pose exactly the question that she posed: what is the charter all about? The hon. Lady was right to emphasise that the issue is controversial. As a former colleague of the hon. Lady at the Council of Europe, I am only too well aware of the existing convention and European Court of Human Rights. One has a certain apprehension about the prospect of another court being created to deal with

231WH
such matters. Many institutions, at home and abroad, could be made to work better, and it would be in our long-term interests to try to make existing institutions work better instead of creating rival institutions, which is likely to lead to the problems mentioned by the hon. Lady.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind hon. Members that this is not a Committee. This is a sitting of the House and I am a Deputy Speaker.
Mr. Gill: I do apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
My concern is that, in Europe today, we see the establishment of rival institutions to those that have served Europe tolerably well since they were created in the aftermath of the second world war. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West referred to the Council of Europe, which now represents 41 nations. That represents a broader body of opinion than does the European Union, which comprises only 15 nations.
However, it is not only in relation to human rights that we see the European Union making a grab for more territory. We can see the corpus juris proposals coming down the track, which will challenge, and perhaps ultimately take over, national jurisprudence. Only yesterday, I read in the newspapers that European Union Foreign Ministers took a major step towards the creation of a European army, in that they approved an embryonic military staff with an operational role in early warning and strategic planning. Of course, colleagues on the Benches to my left, who are all members of the Western European Union as well as the Council of Europe, know exactly what the European Union said very recently about the future of the WEU. In creating euroland, the European Union is creating an alternative form of currency to national currencies. I am concerned that this debate about the charter of fundamental rights offers another illustration of how the European Union is trying to take over something that already exists and does not need to be duplicated, especially as it is questionable whether the new convention will be any more successful than the current institutions.
The reason why I felt moved to speak in the debate, albeit briefly, is that although politicians on the continent are frank about their aims, objectives and long-term aspirations, in this country we still pretend that certain things will not happen; we pretend that the European Union will not be able to grab more powers in more areas. It is greatly to the credit of the hon. Member for Bridgend that he has given us the opportunity to debate these matters and, as I said earlier, my interest in the debate is in flagging up the fact that the European Union is making a grab for territory that it does not need to make a bid for. I suspect that the British public, and Members of Parliament, are unaware of what is going on and unaware of where we are being led. We should take note of the report of the words of Romano Prodi, the President of the European Commission, 10 days ago. Under the headline, "Commission becoming a government, says Prodi," it stated:
"Europe is forging its own government and army, Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission claimed yesterday."
232WH
I am grateful to have the opportunity to flag up the dangers involved when our own politicians are economical with the truth.
11.36 am
Mr. Kevin McNamara: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate. He beat me and my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) to the draw; we had decided that once the debate on the Ilisu dam was out of the way, we were going to apply for a debate on the proposed European charter because of our anxiety about some of the statements made in Strasbourg about attitudes to it.
As other hon. Members seem to be bearing their breast on their attitudes to Europe, I shall do the same. I am happy about the euro, federalism holds no problems for me and loss of sovereignty does not mean a great deal. What is important, however, is that we have working institutions and that, as Members of Parliament, we can defend the interests of our constituents and our country as best we can in those institutions. I am happy about what is taking place and I wish that we had already signed up to the euro.
Having nailed my colours to the mast, I now explain my grave concern about the proposed charter of human rights. The charter has grown like Topsy; it started as a proposal to have a European ombudsman within the European Community to deal with malpractice in administration, just as our ombudsman does. People with a grievance about what was happening in Europe and its institutions would be able to go to the ombudsman, which was perfect and proper. However, in Cologne, the idea grew a new dimension and went onwards and upwards. People said, "Perhaps we should do something about a charter of human rights," and "Perhaps we should have something that is justiciable," and "Perhaps we should take everything over and take everything in." It is obvious from the work load that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend described that it would be startling and fantastic to try to get through so much in eight months or a year.
I have no objection to a general charter on "The Rights of Man", or a proclamation, as in 1916, setting out basic, fundamental human rights. That would be fine, great, splendid. The problem arises when such a charter becomes justiciable. We and our fellow members of the Council of Europe have spent many years reforming the European Court of Justice, changing and streamlining its procedures and the appointment of its judges to meet the extra work load resulting from the expansion of the Council of Europe. A great deal of important work is likely to be thrown down the drain if the European Union produces a set of justiciable principles.
My hon Friend the Member for Bridgend referred to conflicting jurisdictions and different courts reaching different decisions. The court at Luxembourg already has some human rights jurisdiction arising from the treaties. That was one of the problems that we sought to raise when the Maastricht and Amsterdam treaties were being negotiated, because it created a possible area of conflict. The powers that be at that time did not consider it so large, but now it is likely to to be very large indeed. Therefore, our first problem is one of conflicting jurisdictions However, what is more important to me,

233WH
and what most concerns me, is the prospect that the conflict may split the membership of the Council of Europe between the rich countries that are members of the European Union, and the countries that are not and are never likely to be, under the present terms and conditions.
One of the Council of Europe's strengths has been the fact that former communist countries and countries that have broken away from the Soviet Union have been admitted under strict conditions regarding the application of human rights. Indeed, Belarus is outside the Council of Europe because it cannot meet the requirements. We have had problems with countries such as Ukraine over the death penalty, abolition of which we were eventually able to achieve through the force of the Council of Europe's moral persuasion. Less than 18 months ago, a large number of people were on death row in Ukraine. Those who were to be executed did not know when they would be executed, and their families did not know two months after the execution. The pressure exerted by the Council of Europe changed that situation. We can do it by saying "You must meet these standards." However, if there are to be two rival jurisdictions, with the European Union countries looking to Luxembourg rather than to Strasbourg, there will be one court for the rich countries—the established countries—and another for lesser breeds without the law, and that will be a real problem.
One of the strengths of the struggling democratic parties in those countries is that, against precedents or Governments seeking to be dictatorial, they can turn round and say, "We have the convention on human rights. We must abide by that. When decisions have gone against countries like Britain and Germany"— a large number of decisions have gone against the British Government—"those countries have nevertheless accepted the decisions and worked the system." If we have gone away and a weak grouping is left outside, the pressure to follow the European convention on human rights and so on will be limited. Those countries want to be in, but if we take ourselves one step further away, it will be much more difficult to enforce those rights internationally in Europe among the struggling democracies that have weak judiciaries, poor social services, corrupt police forces and terrible administration systems, because they will be seen to be separate and apart. The European Union and the convention looking at those matters should seriously consider that point. Justice should be universal, it should not be confined to the rich few in the centre. We should be able to expand it in that way.
I hope that a fine statement of principles will emerge from the convention, but the principles that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend read out started off like articles 1 and 2 of the convention on human rights, so why are we repeating them in that way? Can we put into a justiciable document matters relating to social policy, much of which I support, but which will differ from country to country and may cause the Europhobes to foam at the mouth? There are matters that should properly be the responsibility of member states, and it is right that as many decisions as possible be taken at a lower level. However, universal principles of justice should be a matter not merely for the European Union
234WH
but for Europe as a whole. It is regrettable that the United States has not signed the universal declaration of human rights; had it done so, the whole world might have a proper scheme.
11.45 am
Mr. Terry Davis: We are all grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for taking this opportunity to report in detail on his work for what I prefer to call the drafting committee for the charter, rather than a convention, because there has been a tendency to confuse it with the convention on human rights. I hope that he will seek further opportunities to initiate such debates during the next eight months; otherwise, I feel sure that our hon. Friends will.
It is clear that hon. Members share a common view on the matter. I listened with interest to the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill), who used to be a member of the delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe. Although there may be differences of emphasis, the common concern among hon. Members is the development of the charter for human rights. As leader of the United Kingdom delegation, I can say that none of its members would disagree with the general thrust of what has been said this morning on the effects of duplication.
I disagree with the hon. Member for Ludlow when he says—I hope that I am quoting him correctly—that politicians on the continent take a different view. My experience has been that politicians in Parliaments throughout the 41 member states in the Council of Europe have expressed concerns similar to ours.
Mr. Gill: My point was that European politicians take an approach to Europe that differs from that of their British counterparts, inasmuch as they spell out exactly what they want to achieve. In this country, we are not so frank, although we may be heading for the same destination. I doubt whether members of the Council of Europe take the view that the right hon. Gentleman suggests.
Mr. Davis: I would never suggest that the hon. Member for Ludlow was less than frank in his views. My point is that politicians in national Parliaments in other member states of the Council of Europe are concerned about the implications of the charter for human rights, particularly in respect of duplication, and for two reasons.
First, if there is a curse in Europe, it is the constant petty jealousy among organisations such as the European Union, the Council of Europe and the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe. There is constant jockeying for position, and a constant wish to take—as the hon. Member for Ludlow described it—and duplicate anything that is popular. Indeed, the charter for human rights owes its genesis to growing disillusion among many member states with the European Union itself, and a search was undertaken to find a measure that could enhance its popularity.
Nevertheless, looking at the matter objectively, there may be advantages in having some kind of charter or declaration, provided we avoid the disadvantages, which my hon. Friends and the hon. Member for Ludlow have eloquently described. The problem with duplication is not only the confusion that would arise if

235WH
there were two conventions or charters that were both subject to legal proceedings—as my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) explained—but the confusion that would arise if there were two courts, which would be even worse if they reached different decisions.
Another big disadvantage, which I ask the Minister to take particularly into account, is that duplication equals waste. It results in additional, unnecessary expenditure. It is no good telling us that the additional expenditure would come from Community resources. It would be a burden, however great or small, for the British taxpayer in two ways—through our Government's expenditure and because the resources of the European Union ultimately come from its citizens. We should be concerned about that expenditure, and I hope that the Minister and his Government colleagues will take the matter seriously into account.
11.50 am
Mr. Mark Oaten: I join other hon. Members in congratulating the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on securing the debate. It has been a useful first canter round the course of the subject, and I am sure that we shall return to it on many occasions. A common thread has emerged in that hon. Members from a wide range of parties have expressed a cautious approach to the suggested changes. I shall explain the Liberal Democrats' stance in due course.
I should like to set out the fundamental principles that should form the underlying benchmarks by which we judge any changes to European Community legislation—in this case, whether we want to make progress towards a new charter. One of the most important benchmarks is the question whether the charter would do anything to help individuals throughout Europe. My view of British and European politics is that our activities should centre on releasing the potential of individuals throughout the Community. Ensuring that fundamental human rights are in place, and enhancing those rights, is an important factor in that. How that is to be achieved is a big question, to which the charter could provide part of the solution. From that perspective, we welcome the initial discussions that are taking place.
Although the Liberal Democrats welcomed the Human Rights Act 1998, we should like the Government to go further and introduce an equality Bill that would extend some of the areas that are not covered by the 1998 Act.
Mr. David Chidgey: On that point, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the problems with the European convention on human rights is the fact that it does not tackle issues such as age discrimination and same-sex relationships, or address problems that arise in respect of new information technology and e-commerce? Those issues are very much in the frame in terms of human rights, which is one of the reasons why an equality Bill should be considered.
Mr. Oaten: My hon. Friend makes an important point. A great deal of work remains to be done on existing legislation before we move too quickly into
236WH
other areas. Given my hon. Friend's role on the committee with responsibility for scrutiny, I am sure that he will be able to raise some of those points.
Mr. McNamara: With regard to the convention's being outdated, is the hon. Gentleman aware that a new protocol that will provide sexual and gender equality has just been passed?
Mr. Oaten: Clearly, we welcome that. Some of the new issues that are emerging need time to bed down so that we can judge their effectiveness, and any additions during that period could cause problems in their implementation.
The Liberal Democrats are committed to reforming Europe and developing a charter of human rights for the European Union. That will be a fundamental step in the right direction. For 50 years, Europe has co-operated heavily in the economic sphere. Over the next 50 years, the focus should shift to co-operation not only on regulation, but on the rights of individuals. The charter could redefine that, and help to make people more aware that the Eurpoean Union has a role for them as individuals in future.
Why is change necessary? A layman might think that the European convention on human rights already provided enough protection in the EU, but he would be wrong. Unlike our national courts, the 'European Court of Justice cannot give direct effect to the European convention on human rights because that convention is not an integral part of the EU. EU treaties have no code of human rights, and the European Court of Human Rights is not able to redress the situation when EU institutions, rather than individual member states, breach convention rights, because the EU has not acceded to the ECHR. In this context, there are loopholes, and we need to improve the situation.
I move on from those questions of ideals to the more difficult question of how a charter might work. Many issues need to be considered and we should not underestimate the complexity of the task in hand. First, on the difficult question of subsidiarity, the Cologne Council made it explicit that the charter of fundamental rights was not an attempt to subvert the current constitutional order of member states and that it should strengthen the EU's identity and policies. That is the right approach. Secondly, the charter must not reduce the rights of citizens—on the contrary, it should, if possible, safeguard such rights in each member state. That, too, is right and proper. Thirdly, the charter should enhance rather than undermine the European convention on human rights, which I agree needs enhancing. We welcome some reforms, but the ECHR is, in many respects, rather old fashioned and its application in EU countries has been rather uneven. The ECHR of 1950 is common to all member states, but not all subsequent protocols have been signed or ratified by member states.
Mr. Chidgey: That is extremely important. The ECHR is 16 pages long, but the number of reservations and declarations runs to 60 pages. That clearly shows that there is a need to clean up the document and to make it more relevant to the modern world.
Mr. Oaten: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. Perhaps the charter will help to generate reforms and improve our current procedures.

237WH
One of the most difficult problems involves the date at which, and the extent to which, the charter should encroach on national preferences. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) discussed what the charter's legal character would be in that context. It is crucial to get it right.
We could pursue various options to reach a solution. First, a proclamation could be used to give the EU a human face, which would involve a set of values or a written document. However, that would be a wasted opportunity if it failed to close some of the current loopholes. Secondly, a declaration could be issued that described the current state of affairs, informed EU institutions of their duties and used a stronger form of wording. A third option would involve using a protocol and amending the treaty so as to oblige the European Court of Justice and member states to be informed of its terms. Should that approach be enshrined in the treaty? Should that requirement be enforceable in national courts, and should individuals have direct access to the European Court of Justice as a matter of last resort? Or, bluntly, are we going too fast and too far, and should we pause while we put some of the institutions in place?
I was attracted by the two-phase approach that the hon. Member for Bridgend suggested. There is merit in that approach, which might involve firm time scales that would ensure that we achieved targets before moving on.
Liberal Democrats believe that there is logic in moving towards a structure that incorporates the charter, but that we should avoid creating a two-tier system, which the hon. Member for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) discussed. I was taken by his observation that a two-tier system might allow poor and richer countries to be treated differently. It would be a nonsense if two different legal opinions competed over the issue of rights.
The common-sense approach involves accepting that existing structures improve performance radically and that additional elements could be added. Much can be done to reform the European Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights, which should take on some of the new elements that could be added to them. It should also be a priority that they should be in a position to cope with enlargement by up to 12 new member states over the next few years.
One need only ask any farmer—I acknowledge that this is not directly related to the issue—whether it makes sense to have a battle lasting nearly two years in the European courts to resolve the beef issue. Our current systems are too slow and need to be improved. The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law is a welcome development, but is an on-going process. It will take a considerable time for our judicial systems to adjust to it.
In conclusion, we welcome the Government's approach, but we suggest that it should be a cautious one. If we ensure that our current institutions are up to speed, in order and providing a good service for people, we can then ensure that the convention and the changes relating to the new charter can be brought on track. At this stage, however, we should monitor progress
238WH
carefully to make sure that that happens at a time appropriate to the best interests of individuals throughout Europe.
12 noon
Mr. Richard Spring: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on raising this important issue. It has not been the focus of much public attention, and today's debate will concentrate minds on what is happening, give hon. Members an opportunity to express their concerns—they have already made some very pertinent observations—and allow the Government to clarify their position.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the mandate for the establishment of the charter was set out in Cologne in June 1999. That made it clear that the charter would contain rights and freedoms set out in the European convention as well as rights pertaining to European Union citizens. It also stated that account should be taken of economic and social rights. The Cologne communiqué, which was approved by the Prime Minister, clearly allows the drafting convention to set out a wide-ranging and far-reaching set of rights, should it wish to do so. Initial indications show that that is exactly what is happening.
Two claims have been made. First, it was said that the charter would cover only existing rights. Secondly, it was said that it would not be legally binding. Those assertions have been repeated on a number of occasions, and I would like to explore them in this debate. However, I should first like to comment on the observations made by the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones). She asked some important questions about the status and applicability of the charter, a point that was amplified well by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill).
The Foreign Secretary told the House of Commons that
"we are not proposing a constitution of Europe. We are proposing that a charter of rights should codify in a single place the rights that already exist in European legislation…we broadly welcome that European charter of rights".—[Official Report, 25 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 184.]
Moreover, the Minister of State told the House:
"I made it clear in my evidence to the Scrutiny Committee that it is a charter of existing rights. It sets out the rights that have been granted to EU citizens as a result of treaties and legislation. It is not binding or enforceable. It is a charter, as we have said, not a new treaty."—[Official Report, 1 December 1999; Vol. 340, c. 400-401.]
However, we are now rather used to hearing such reassurances from the Government. We have heard them in the past, and they are frequently not matched by reality. We are used to being told that items that have been agreed at European level pose no threat, only to find that they are far more integrationist than anything originally envisaged—or, more important, supported—by the British people. We are used to Ministers saying one thing in Britain and signing up to something rather different in Brussels. We must read the small print carefully.
The Government must provide concrete guarantees on some of the fundamental issues arising from the charter. They must provide a specific guarantee that a

239WH
whole new set of wide-ranging rights will not be created at a European level. It is becoming clear that the extent of rights discussed by the convention goes far beyond anything already contained in the treaties. During its second plenary session earlier this month, the convention was reported to have accepted, as a working basis, a list of so-called rights drawn up by its secretariat. That list includes economic and social rights, such as the right to work; rights governing working conditions, including rights to fair pay, weekly rest and paid leave; collective rights including worker information and consultation; and a right to strike. It includes social protection rights such as a right to health, social protection, health insurance, maternity protection, and integration of disabled people.
Mr. Win Griffiths: I pointed out earlier that those were merely subjects for discussion. In relation to some of the rights mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, I questioned whether they were fundamental rights or objectives that political parties might regard as good to put in their manifestos. We should not regard the convention as a monolith that will swallow any view wholesale. I hope that my earlier speech outlined the different strands of opinion on the matter.
Mr. Spring: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point. I accept that diverse views exist. The question is what will ultimately happen. At a European level, rights have been amplified and expanded, which creates all sorts of problems. I want to address that point with regard to nation states. At first glance, we can all agree with the hon. Gentleman on the broad aim of improving provision for European citizens in most areas. However, who defines those rights? Who decides whether current employment legislation in Britain contravenes a European right to strike? Who decides whether the current level of the minimum wage constitutes fair pay? Who decides whether the Government's changes to incapacity benefit will contravene rights to social protection and the integration of disabled people? Will the Government guarantee that the charter will include only rights already established in the treaties?
The second fundamental issue is whether the charter will be integrated into the treaties, and whether that will cause it to be legally enforceable through the European Court of Justice. That is the approach favoured by the European Parliament. The British Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament, Andrew Duff, who is one of the European Parliament's rapporteurs on the matter, has reportedly called for a binding charter, and for the European Union to have a legal personality so that it may subscribe to the European convention on human rights. Liberal Democrat Members of the European Parliament voted for the charter to have a legally binding effect.
When Lord Goldsmith, who is the Government's representative, submitted a paper that placed emphasis on the need to adopt a simple text that could have maximum public impact, the representative from the Dutch Parliament responded:
"We are not here to draw up a brochure to promote Europe but to draw up a legal text, transposable into law".
Many have expressed concern about recent judgments by the European Court of Human Rights. An example was the appeal by the killers of James Bulger. Concern
240WH
has been expressed about the effect of incorporating the convention into UK law, especially in Scotland, where it is already enforced. Examples exist of Scottish law being judged incompatible with European human rights law. It would be wholly unacceptable to have a new tranche of so-called rights forced on Britain by a European court that has a track record of interpreting treaty articles in an integrationist way. The charter may start as a non-binding statement, but it may not end up that way. The social chapter, for example, started life as a non-binding statement. It is now incorporated into the treaty, and allows social legislation to be imposed on Britain, often by qualified majority voting.
That is how integration in Europe evolves—step by step. Others have recognised the reality of that. As one contributor to the convention's second meeting noted:
"Even if it is not our intention to adopt a text with legal value, we must be careful as this text could become binding."
It is worth recalling that Commission President Romano Prodi has boasted about this process. I believe that my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow alluded to that. Only a few days ago Mr. Prodi boasted to The Independent that "step by step" the Commission was behaving "like a growing government".
First, we are given a list of generalised principles. Then there is a far-reaching range of broad so-called rights. First there is non-binding statement, and then there is a treaty chapter incorporated into the treaties and enforceable in the European Court of Justice. First there is a bland outline of generalised aims, and then there is a charter for wide-ranging interference in British law.
Mr. Oaten: The hon. Gentleman has set out a course of activity. Where would the British Conservative party draw the line?
Mr. Spring: I hope to receive some clear assurances from the Government about exactly where they are drawing the line. We will certainly wish to respond in detail to that information. We all look forward to hearing the Minister in a few minutes.
The second guarantee that we seek is that the charter will never be incorporated into the treaty or be made legally enforceable. That is a guarantee that the Foreign Secretary signally failed to provide when challenged by the shadow Foreign Secretary, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), in the House yesterday. For many, the charter is all part of a wider integrationist agenda in Europe. The integrationists are pushing for a European Union with its own Government, army, taxes, foreign policy, criminal justice system, constitution and concept of citizenship as well as currency—in other words, a single European state. It is vital that this charter does not become part of that process. It is vital that the Government stand up for the view of the mainstream majority of the British public. It is vital that they end the process of marching, step by step, towards a single European state.
12.12 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Keith Vaz): I begin, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by apologising again for being late for the start of this debate. As I explained to the Deputy Speaker at the

241WH
time, I was addressing a meeting of students who had come over with the Queen of Denmark as part of the state visit and I was unavoidably delayed. I apologise to hon. Members for keeping them waiting.
I join in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) on his success in securing the debate. As he has the support of those sitting next to him, he was bound to be successful in the ballot. I am delighted to see so many other hon. Members present, including the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) who, as usual, wants to broaden out the debate into other matters. I shall deal with all the arguments.
This is an excellent opportunity to hear from my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend about the excellent work that he and others are doing on the drafting body of the charter of rights. This is perhaps our only mechanism to get a report back on what is happening. I hope that he will be successful again in the near future so that he may give us an update on what is happening there. There is no point in hearing from the man who is reading the manuscript when one can hear from the man who is writing the book.
We welcome the fact that we have two excellent representatives, from the House and the other place. We have another excellent representative, the Prime Minister's representative Lord Goldsmith, who was appointed at the start of this procedure and who comes to the task, unlike my hon. Friend, as a lawyer. He is perhaps one of the most eminent silks of his generation. It is good to have three such outstanding people at the drafting body of the charter of rights. All in the House will welcome the fact that the United Kingdom's place is assured by having such good representation.
A number of hon. Members mentioned the Cologne conclusions. It may be helpful to read out paragraph 44, which states:
"The European Council takes the view that, at the present stage of development of the European Union, the fundamental rights applicable at Union level should be consolidated in a charter and thereby made more evident."
That is why the charter of rights was set up which, as the hon. Member for West Suffolk (Mr. Spring) said, the Prime Minister was glad to approve. We all feel that it is high time for a document to be produced that clarifies the rights and responsibilities of European citizens and is submitted to the European Council and the people of Europe.
The charter of rights is part of the Government's reform agenda on the European Union. The charter will set out existing legal rights enfranchising the people of Europe. New rights will not be added, as it would be inappropriate for the drafting body to legislate on behalf of the European Union. That is partly because the charter body is outside existing EU structures, a setup which enables us to have representatives such as Lord Goldsmith, who can give the drafting bodies expertise and insight that Members of this House and various European Parliaments may not have.
I am amazed that the hon. Member for West Suffolk suggested that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend was talking about an attempt to legislate. There is no such attempt. As European citizens, we already have rights and responsibilities.
242WH
My hon. Friends the Members for Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) and for Wolverhampton, South-West (Ms Jones) have asked whether there will be any overlap with the European convention on human rights. I hope that there will not, which is why we have representatives who, to use the words of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Davis), ensure that duplication and waste do not occur. My right hon. Friend is a veteran of the Council of Europe and knows how important it is that European institutions do not duplicate the work of other bodies.
Of course, there will be some common issues. However, the drafting body will ensure that there is no duplication. We will set out the source of existing rights in the European convention if, indeed, there are any such rights. I therefore commend to the House Lord Goldsmith's effective paper, a copy of which has been placed in the Library. It sets out a user-friendly approach to the whole process, stating clearly in ordinary, simple language what people's rights are and the source of those rights.
That is the background to the charter of rights. The hon. Member for Ludlow expects my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and his colleagues to write a great constitution. However, I must disabuse him of that notion. If my hon. Friend and five Europeans were to meet in a café in Brussels for a cup of tea, the hon. Member for Ludlow would believe that they were plotting the formation of a superstate. He must calm down, as there are no shadows in the charter of rights. There is no possibility of any advance on the Cologne conclusions, which were repeated by President Herzog of the charter drafting committee, and others. So the hon. Gentleman need not worry.
The hon. Member for West Suffolk asked about the European army. There is no such army. No decision was taken on Monday or Tuesday to have a European army. I was present when a decision was taken that was in line with the policy of successive Governments, Conservative and Labour—that Europe should have the capability to deal with crisis management in Europe: the so-called Petersberg tasks.
Mr. Spring: The Minister may misunderstand the point. The President of the Commission has expressed a wish to move towards a European army. The Commission is driving the agenda towards an integrationist Europe, with all its attendant institutions. That is obvious; it is on the record and has been said before. I hope that the Minister will reject that viewpoint now.
Mr. Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is obsessed with the sayings—or alleged sayings—of Romano Prodi. I welcome the hon. Gentleman formally to the Front Bench as shadow Minister for Europe. I can take him with me on my next trip to Brussels so that he can see what is happening—[Interruption.] I had only a brief lunch on Monday because we were busy dealing with important issues. When he goes to Brussels, the hon. Gentleman will find that the representatives of the United Kingdom—at official and ministerial level—fight extremely hard to maintain the interests of this country. We fight our corner as everyone else does, but we also believe in the notion of Europe—a Europe of nation states, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House of Commons yesterday.

243WH
Let us not get carried away with the European superstate, with the charter of rights as a European constitution, or with the allegation that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), Lord Goldsmith, Lord Bowness and others are seeking to stick things in which we shall not find out about. I want to make it clear to the House of Commons that we shall see the fruits of our efforts in draft form. Although the Commission and European Parliament are more than welcome to their opinions and more than welcome to try to shape the debate as they have always done, the final decision on the proposals rests with the European Council. I was asked whether the decision would be legally binding—
Mr. McNamara: Will the House of Commons have an opportunity to debate the draft proposals before a decision is taken?
Mr. Vaz: I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and others will seek every opportunity to debate these matters. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hull, North knows, I and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary always come to the House of Commons to debate forthcoming European Council events. We did so before Helsinki and we shall do so again before Nice. It is hoped that the process will be completed this year. There will be ample opportunity to question Ministers through the mechanisms that have been established to facilitate debate.
Hon. Members should not wait for a debate in the House to debate the charter of rights. The hon. Members for Ludlow and for West Suffolk can e-mail and write to Lord Goldsmith, to my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and to Lord Bowness if they wish to pursue a point. They can even write to me and they will receive a reply. There are many opportunities for hon. Members to present their views on this important issue.
I wish to make it clear that the Government regard the charter of rights as extremely important. For the first time ever, European citizens will know their rights and responsibilities. The user-friendly approach adopted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and by Lord
244WH
Goldsmith is the right approach. For too long, people have believed that the European Union is shrouded in mystery. It attracts the attention of people such as the hon. Member for Ludlow, who believe that sinister actions are taking place in Strasbourg and Brussels. They believe that terrible things happen at our meetings in the shadows and margins of the European Union. That is simply not the case.
The charter of rights represents a first step on the way to explaining in simple and user-friendly language exactly how people benefit from membership of the European Union. I do not yet know the final form that it will take. It could be a small pledge card or a larger document. I do not know whether my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend will have his way and it will be on two sides of A4 paper. The Foreign Secretary and those who serve on the drafting body, as well as myself, want to ensure that it will not be a legalistic document incomprehensible to people in Ludlow, Ipswich, Winchester or Hull. It must be relevant to people's lives.
The constant thrust from the Conservative party—although not from the Liberal Democrats—is that everything that happens in relation to Europe is negative. When we go to our European Council meetings and when my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend and others attend meetings of the drafting bodies, we make a valuable contribution. In the 18 weeks since I became a Minister,' I have been overwhelmed by the support that the United Kingdom has received in leading and guiding debate on the European Union. The enlargement process that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary announced in the House only yesterday gives us another opportunity to ensure that the rights, responsibilities and values that we hold so dear in the European Union can be exported to the new applicant countries. This is a great opportunity to show Europe—and the whole world—the benefits of the EU. I hope that hon. Members will continue to support the work that is being done so that we have a charter of rights of which we can be proud.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. We can proceed to the next debate, but I would ask those hon. Members who wish to leave to do so quietly now.

Rail Services (North London)
12.26 pm
Ms Joan Ryan: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the subject of rail services in north London in general, but particularly those in my constituency of Enfield, North.
My request for the debate was prompted by the deterioration of rail services to Enfield and the consequent loss of confidence of my constituents who, for reasons that I shall come to later, are dependent on the train operating company West Anglia Great Northern or WAGN. Their fears are compounded by the news that many train operating companies are renegotiating to have their franchises extended. I do not object to that in principle. We all understand that to bring about the levels of service that we require, it is not unrealistic for train companies to have a reasonable period in which to reap the benefits of their investment.
I believe that most of my constituents wholeheartedly support the Government's attempts to shift traffic from the roads by encouraging more extensive use of railways and I think that they would also understand many of the problems involved in trying to achieve that. None the less, the shortfall in service delivery with current user levels undermines the prospect of success.
The London borough of Enfield estimates that it has seen an increase in road traffic of approximately 1.5 per cent. each year for the past 30 years. That clearly demonstrates that the problem is not new and that the Government are right to pursue an integrated transport system. While I intend to concentrate on the example of Enfield, I am certain from discussions with hon. Members who represent other north London constituencies that much of what I say today will echo the concerns of many thousands of other rail users throughout the region. I know that my hon. Friends the Members for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) and for Edmonton (Mr. Love) share my concerns. I was also approached by other hon. Members who have in turn been approached by their constituents and by business representatives on this matter, particularly regarding urgent need for improvement in lateral routes such as the East London line.
WAGN is a subsidiary of Prism Rail. In 1997 it was awarded the franchise for the London, Peterborough, Cambridge, King's Lynn and Stansted lines operating from Liverpool Street, Moorgate and King's Cross stations. The contract was for seven years and three months, so is due to expire in 2004. Those rail services go through my constituency and provide essential passenger rail transport from nine stations in Enfield, North—from Enfield Chase, Gordon Hill and Crews Hill in the west, and Southbury, Turkey Street, Ponders End, Brimsdown and Enfield Lock on the eastern lines and Enfield Town. I say essential services because unlike many other parts of north London there are no rail alternatives for commuters from Enfield, North. The underground does not extend as far as Enfield, North and road transport into central London is barely an option, due to congestion and travelling time.
Enfield borough council estimates that some 10,000 people use the railways to travel from Enfield to work each day and that a further 1,500 use the service to travel
246WH
to Enfield to work each day. I rely on the service from Enfield Chase station into Finsbury park or Highbury and Islington to pick up the underground to Westminster. Although I use this service regularly, I am indebted to the Enfield rail user groups, which represent many of my constituents, for the broad range of data that they have collected from each of the lines through Enfield, North. I make particular mention of the Enfield Lock rail user group and the business user group, which have provided specific information on the shortcomings of WAGN's services for both private passengers and business and industry in Enfield.
In December last year, the three Enfield Labour MPs invited WAGN's managing director, Euan Cameron, to make the journey from Turkey Street in Enfield, North through Edmonton Green to Liverpool Street to see at first hand the service that rail users receive. To his credit, he was happy to take part. He discussed with us the various problems, which he also discussed with rail user groups' representatives. Mr. Cameron, in an earlier letter to me, was candid enough to concede that the service provided by WAGN had been unacceptable.
The purpose of the journey was to identify specific areas where urgent improvement is needed. Those problems were further highlighted at the Enfield transport users forum in December and again in the community debate in January, both events being initiated by Enfield council. They were welcome initiatives under its agenda for modernising local government.
The shadow strategic rail authority makes it clear that one of the prime proposals for replacement franchises is to reduce perceived barriers to switching from car to public transport, but the experience of many who participated in our local forum made clear the extent of the problem, including increasing overcrowding on trains. WAGN conceded that there has been a 7 per cent. growth in the number of passengers during peak hours and an overall increase of 12 per cent. in two years—something that we should welcome—yet there are no additional trains serving this already overcrowded route.
Mr. Lloyd Tew Cragg of the Enfield Lock rail user group has written to me, and to WAGN, to describe the experience of his fellow passengers. His group is nicknamed, with typical gallows humour, the mushroom club, as each morning commuters on the Lee Valley line remark to each other when they have boarded their train, "There's not mushroom in here, is there?" Mr. Tew Gragg also highlights the remarkable practice of trains failing to stop at certain stations if they are running late. I understand that rail operators are judged to have failed punctuality targets only if trains complete their entire journey late. Therefore trains running late at certain stages of the route can make up lost time simply by missing out whole stations. The consequences are obvious. Passengers are stranded at those stations until the arrival of the next service, which outside peak hours, can be as much as 45 minutes later. That places an additional burden on already overcrowded trains and stations as passengers who would have expected to depart on a previous service are forced to compete for space on a later train.
Trains running along the Lee Valley line during peak hours are scheduled only every 30 minutes. The disruption caused to people with appointments or

247WH
obligations by cancelled trains or those that do not stop is all too easy to imagine. This problem is further exacerbated by a lack of information for passengers about cancellations and delays. With no information screens and stations that are often unstaffed, passengers cannot get information or advice about their journey plans. Trains users do not only travel out of Enfield to work: Enfield has many businesses which also suffer from poor rail services. Employers in the borough report that their staff are reluctant to use public transport, especially trains, because of the unreliability of services. Off-peak travel is especially precarious, and therefore becomes impractical for many shift workers and those on flexi-time. Employers also report that that may have an effect on their ability to recruit and retain staff.
Such difficulties almost pale into insignificance against those that people with disabilities endure. Enfield Disablement Association has noted that disabled people are unable to use WAGN services freely. They are required to give about 24 hours' notice if they need assistance and they must state which train they intend to use, and that is on a local network. The train network is largely inaccessible to them because of problems with stairs. Indeed, if a disabled person embarks on a train at Enfield Town station, the only station where he can disembark, wherever he wants to go, is Liverpool Street—all other stations are inaccessible.
The design of stations and the problems of poor availability of information compound the difficulties faced by people with visual impairment, and they too, have made representations to me. In its defence, WAGN states that most stations were built in the Victorian era and that it, too, is concerned about accessibility, but it says that major work would be required to solve such problems. There the matter rests, and no progress is made.
Passenger safety on trains and at stations is another major concern. The poor maintenance of stations, such as Southbury, which could best be described as derelict, produces an intimidating atmosphere. Attacks have occurred at that station. Apparently, even a member of WAGN's staff was attacked there. The neglect of that station and others makes people afraid to leave trains when darkness has fallen. Enfield Women's Safety Forum highlighted that problem and constituents have told me that they will travel beyond their station to disembark at a station where they feel safe. In effect, no-go zones exist when daylight has gone.
Mr. Stephen Twigg: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. As she has said, she is reflecting widespread concern among rail users in the borough of Enfield and more widely in north London. Like hers, my mailbag is regularly full of complaints about the service that WAGN provides. Many of the issues that she highlights are shared. When she takes the train from Enfield Chase to Finsbury Park or Highbury and Islington, she travels through my constituency, through the stations of Grange Park, Winchmore Hill, Palmers Green and Bowes Park. Those are the stations that my constituents use most, and they raise similar issues to those that she mentions.
New Southgate and Hadley Wood stations on the line to Welwyn Garden City are in my constituency. The
248WH
state of New Southgate station is similar to that of Southbury. It is important that WAGN recognises such problems and deals with station safety. WAGN has reached an agreement with some local people to open a café-bar at Palmers Green station, which has provided an excellent new facility at that station and helped to improve the safety and security of the passengers who use it. That is a positive example.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Interventions should be brief. Another example would definitely be over the mark.
Ms Ryan: My hon. Friend makes the point well. WAGN has made some welcome improvements, but they would be even more so if they had been more widespread. By far the most mail that I receive is on that local issue. Complaints continue to be made; people do not stop when they have made one complaint. Week in, week out, trains do not turn up or are late. People cannot obtain the information that they need, or they feel unsafe on a station platform, so they will complain again. I encourage my constituents to complain. It is an important right, and they should exercise it to ensure that West Anglia Great Northern knows the size of the problem.
I am not sure whether WAGN is aware of the problem. Enfield rail user groups have undertaken their own survey of passengers' opinions of the service. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate agrees with me that those findings sit at odds with the survey published by the shadow strategic rail authority, which claims that 76 per cent. of passengers nationally thought that the service was good or fairly good. However, that figure represents the level of satisfaction with a particular journey on the day of the survey. For regular users, the figure for the general level of service dropped to 64 per cent. The figures are higher in the surveys undertaken for users of the Enfield service.
I do not question the honesty of the shadow strategic rail authority or the validity of its survey, but those figures would be greeted with incredulity by Enfield rail users. That leads my constituents to feel as if they are the poor relation to those who use the more lucrative passenger services from Cambridge, King's Lynn, Stanstead and elsewhere. Those of my constituents who use the railways say to me that they feel that Enfield was taken on by WAGN because it happened to be part of the franchise, but that the company's real commitment is to the more distant areas, which have faster trains and more lucrative lines. It seems that Enfield is not a priority, and that it not good enough.
The managing director of WAGN denies that, but experience of the railway service in Enfield confirms my constituents in their view. More than 1,000 people have signed petitions organised by Maria Preswell of the Enfield Lock rail user group. Their demands are reasonable; they include four trains an hour, four carriages per train and better information about services. That is the least that we should expect, but it is a long way from what we get.
I referred earlier to a letter that I received from Euan Cameron. I am pleased to say that the managing director of WAGN agrees that it is not good enough.

249WH
I had hoped to pursue the matter directly with him at a meeting in January, but that was cancelled by WAGN at short notice. We had hoped that Mr. Cameron would provide us with a timetable for the implementation of the specific improvements that we raised with him on our train journey. He agreed to provide a timetable, but sadly—like some of his trains—it has not yet arrived.
We understand that a fare increase is imminent. I believe that it should be tied to improvements in service. Rail fare increases not accompanied by service improvements would be a further insult to my constituents. Those increases should be not something for nothing but something for something—a phrase used elsewhere by the Government. If we have to pay increased fares, we should expect an improved service.
In the short and medium term, we want four trains an hour. We want trains of four carriages rather than two on either side of the peak hours. We want waiting rooms that are safe and that make passengers feel secure. We want improvements for people with disabilities, and we want improved information for all passengers. The shadow strategic rail authority says that the replacement rail franchises are expected to be much longer than the original franchises and that they may last for between 10 and 20 years. A review will be conducted every five to seven years to assess the franchisee's peformance. This debate is not a WAGN-bashing session, but it is clear to my constituents in Enfield, North that improvements are badly needed. They will support a renewed franchise only if vital improvements start to become apparent. Otherwise, they will be horrified at the possibility of a 20-year franchise.
We have a strong case that we have put on a number of occasions and in different places. We have strong support from our local authority, which is making sterling efforts to make the case for our passengers and to improve the rail service for the people of Enfield, North and for the rest of Enfield. However, very little is happening. The reality is that, for all that we have said and for all the times that we have raised the issues, we do not see the improvements that we seek. I am meeting the managing director of WAGN in just over a week's time, and I shall again put the matter forcefully. I hope that my hand will be strengthened by this debate.
The Enfield rail users group asked me to add my voice to its own to achieve these improvements. I ask the Minister and the Government to add their voices to ours.
12.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, North (Ms Ryan) for raising an issue that is important for her constituents and of general interest to the travelling public. I should like at the outset to pursue a couple of points that she made towards the end of her speech. She said that she wanted four trains an hour throughout the day. My advice is that that service is already provided. If that is not the case, my hon, Friend might want to provide me with details after the debate, but I am advised that there are four trains an hour throughout the day, until early evening. I am advised that there are no two-carriage West Anglia Great
250WH
Northern trains and that the minimum number of carriages is four. Again, I must rely on the advice that I am given, but I should be interested to see any advice that my hon. Friend has to the contrary.
I should like to start by making a few general points and then deal with the particular case outlined by my hon. Friend. The Government accept that passengers want punctual and reliable trains and that they want to feel safe, comfortable and secure on trains and at stations. They also want easy access to accurate and impartial travel information and adequate compensation when things go wrong. For that to happen, we need more investment in infrastructure, rolling stock and station improvements. We also need better and more consistent performance, a clear and affordable fares structure and a rail system that is fully integrated and which allows seamless transfers with other public transport modes. Only then can we hope to encourage people to choose to travel by public transport rather than by private car. That is why the Deputy Prime Minister issued new instructions and guidance to the franchising director last September, asking him to deliver improvements through renegotiation of the terms of franchise agreements.
When considering renegotiation requests, we have asked the franchising director to give due weight to commitments on current performance, customer services, innovation, efficiency, new or earlier investment, securing better performance, initiatives to produce integrated transport, willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services and value for the taxpayers. Unfortunately, it is not possible for all the current franchise agreements to be renegotiated overnight. The franchising director's overall objective is to replace most shorter franchises—those expiring by 2004—within about two years. The WAGN franchise, which expires in April 2004, will be one of those to be considered, so my hon. Friend has raised the matter at an appropriate time.
I should like to address my hon. Friend's specific concerns about WAGN's services. As she said, it would be only fair to note that passengers travelling on its lines generally enjoy a comparatively punctual and reliable service. Although passenger numbers have increased, WAGN has not experienced the massive increases that have resulted in severe overcrowding on the neighbouring Thameslink service. I appreciate that her commuters will not necessarily be satisfied to know that the situation on their line is not nearly as bad as that on a neighbouring one, so I do not make too much of the point; I merely refer to it in passing.
My hon. Friend referred to the results of the national passenger survey based on a study of 1,000 WAGN passengers. It found that 77 per cent. were satisfied or very satisfied with the service, compared with 76 per cent for the whole network. I heard what she said about the figure being lower among regular commuters.
As we have heard, WAGN's passengers have not escaped the frustrations caused by poor performance, despite its relatively good track record. Commuters forced to stand every day will take little comfort from the fact that overcrowding levels are below agreed thresholds.
WAGN scored lower on value for money than any other train operating company in the national passenger survey, with only 30 per cent. of pasengers being

251WH
satisfied or very satisfied—that accords with my hon. Friend's information. Those using West Anglia Outer services will take little comfort from the fact that the latest shadow rail authority performance bulletin listed WAGN as one of the top five performing train operating companies. Discounts are currently being paid because of poor punctuality. There are contradictions between the different figures.
My hon. Friend expressed concern about inadequate service levels, especially in the off-peak period. WAGN is operating at and, in some cases, beyond, its contracted passenger service requirements. When setting the requirements, the franchising director ensured that a core provision was protected so that the service would be broadly similar to that operated by British Rail before franchising. However, from what she said, it seems that the provision might be inadequate; the franchising director will no doubt bear that in mind when the time for renegotiation comes.
My hon. Friend also expressed concern that WAGN is missing stations to avoid triggering penalties for late-running trains. However, the company is penalised under the regime by the franchising director if trains fail to stop at an advertised station. Likewise, it is penalised for running short formation trains. I asked how the director would know when a train did not stop at a station. I am not competely satisfied with the answer. My hon. Friend might know how he would. She should pursue the point with the franchising director, and I might too.
My hon. Friend suggested that fare increases should be tied to improvements in services. She surely knows that the franchising director has capped the increase of key fares at 1 per cent. below the rate of inflation. However, for London commuter fares, increases can be adjusted by 2 per cent. above or below the fares cap to reflect the quality of operators' services. WAGN was held to below-inflation increases because of its performance during the year to July 1999. Her commuters can have the mild satisfaction of knowing that an incentive is built into the fares structure that ought to be pressing the company to provide a better service.
My hon. Friend mentioned access for disabled passengers. I accept that there are problems for which there are no easy short-term solutions. Train operators are required to produce and comply with the disabled people's protection policy. They have made a number of improvements to stations and trains to make them accessible. New rail vehicles have to comply with the rail vehicle accessibility regulations. They require operators to conform to detailed specifications for wheelchair access and to provide clear colour contrast, audible and visual announcements and a range of other features to help people with a wide range of mobility difficulties.
Train operators recommend that passengers with disabilities contact their dedicated help point before travelling, but I agree that having to do that 24 hours in
252WH
advance is not helpful. If contacted in advance, operators can usually arrange for staff to meet disabled passengers at their departure station, accompany them to the train and help them to board.
The fear of crime deters many people, especially women, older people and people from ethnic minorities, from using trains. Many train operators have taken steps to improve security by installing CCTV and help points, improving lighting and introducing rapid response arrangements.
Ms Ryan: The local council held a forum for businesses and services in the borough on CCTV. The only group that was invited but did not attend was WAGN.
Mr. Mullin: If that is so, it is clearly unsatisfactory.
As for consultation with passengers, we are determined that they should be given a say in their rail services. That is the only way to make train operators provide the services that meet the needs and expectations of their customers.
When considering requests for franchise replacement, the franchising director will consult rail users consultative committees, the London regional passengers committee, local authorities, regional planning authorities and regional development agencies, as appropriate. We might add relevant Members of Parliament to that list. My hon. Friend will no doubt want to draw her speech to the attention of the franchising director. The rail users consultative committees and the London regional passengers committee will also be encouraged to talk to a wide range of individual users and local groups to ensure that passengers' views are taken into account.
The franchising director's objective is to secure the earliest possible delivery of better services for passengers while providing demonstrable value for money for the taxpayer. However, it is important to remember that the franchising director is not committed to accepting the proposals that are received from prospective franchisees. If an application is to succeed, it will have to guarantee better performance, more investment, the expansion of network capacity and improvements for passengers, as well as providing the taxpayer with value for money. If applications fail to deliver those improvements, the franchising director could decide to allow existing franchises to run their course.
In conclusion, we are determined to improve the quality of rail services and to build a railway that is fit for the 21st century. However, the problems that my hon. Friend mentioned show that WAGN has some way to go before it consistently delivers a rail service that meets passengers' needs. I am grateful to her for raising the subject. No doubt the franchising director and WAGN will take careful note of what she said.

Greenbelt Development
12.58 pm
Miss Julie Kirkbride: I am grateful for the opportunity to debate greenfield sites. Although it is an important issue in my constituency, I suspect that Bromsgrove is representative of other authorities with predominant greenbelt land. They, too, face severe problems as a result of the Government's requirement for additional housing, which is passed down to the county councils, which then pass it down to the district councils. That creates great difficulties for greenbelt authorities. Bromsgrove comprises 92 per cent. greenbelt, which is a high percentage compared with other authorities. Sadly, the Government cannot give us figures about which other authorities have more than 90 per cent. greenbelt land in their boundaries, but clearly there are some, and those authorities have a problem as a result.
It is important to remind ourselves why the greenbelt was created in the first place. Greenbelt land is countryside that has special designation and protection so that it will act as a barrier and protect the countryside and, in the case of Bromsgrove, prevent the overspill of the metropolis of Birmingham from spreading further and further into the Worcestershire countryside until the metropolis and countryside become indistinguishable. Greenbelt land should receive extra protection because it forms a greenbelt around inner cities to prevent them from sprawling beyond their boundaries, but, sadly, it does not seem to receive that extra protection. That is a problem in Bromsgrove.
Conservative Members find it frustrating that, whenever we debate the greenbelt, the Government say that there is good news because they have created more of it—the Minister's response may fall into line with that. The only reason why the Government have found it necessary to create more greenbelt is because they have allowed the despoliation of the land that previously existed. Of course, if we were properly to protect the greenbelt, it would not be necessary to create more of it because the creation of greenbelt suggests that areas of countryside are in danger of being developed and greenbelt designation is necessary to stop urban sprawl. If proper planning laws were in place, it would not be necessary to create more greenbelt, however, desirable it is to designate such land once the problem has been created. My aim in the debate is to highlight that problem and to ask the Government to give extra protection to areas such as Bromsgrove and other areas of greenbelt so that we can maintain the beautiful English countryside and keep towns as towns, rather than create a great mix of things.
To explain the problem that exists in Bromsgrove, we have already bound sites for about 2,600 houses out of the 3,950 homes that we have had to build between 1996 and 2011. Extra homes have been added to our original target, but we must still find space to build another 1,350 homes. The problem is that there are no remaining useable brownfield sites. I say "useable" because, to be accurate, there is a small brownfield site in Hagley near the sewerage works, but to make that site viable it would be necessary to use some greenbelt land, which would be self-defeating. The other non-greenbelt site is an area closer to the town of farmland that is grade 1 agricultural land. Although it is not designated as
254WH
greenbelt, it is certainly green land, and that is the only other site in the whole of Bromsgrove that is not classified as greenbelt on which we could build homes. Therefore, district councils tell me that we need about 100 acres of greenbelt land to meet the requirement for 1,350 more homes. That does not include future annual development requirements under which the district council will be obliged to find even more space for such further development as the Government think appropriate. Bromsgrove has a real problem. It is a greenbelt authority, under that special protection, but is no different from anywhere else with respect to the distribution of housing targets. It is expected to take further homes and to spoil what the greenbelt was intended to protect.
I appeal to the Minister for a change in the way in which housing targets are organised. We should not allow the inner city to sprawl out. At present, the greenbelt classification seems not to mean any added or special protection for authorities such as Bromsgrove, which seems to defeat its purpose.
How did the figure of 1,350 homes come about? Worcestershire county council, which handed down the target to Bromsgrove, has a housing target of 6,450 homes by 2011. They have been distributed between the six Worcestershire districts so that Bromsgrove, with 92 per cent. greenbelt land, has a target of 1,350 homes; Wyre Forest, next door in the north of the county, with 65 per cent. greenbelt land, has been given a target of 850 homes; Redditch, with 35 per cent. greenbelt land, has a target of 1,050 homes; Wychavon, 25 per cent. of which is designated greenbelt, is to have 1,300 homes; Worcester, which is 10 per cent. greenbelt land, is to have 1,500; and Malvern, which has no greenbelt land, has a target of 800 homes.
Bromsgrove, despite containing by far the largest amount of greenbelt, has been given the second highest housing allocation in the county. That seems perverse, given the reasons for the greenbelt and the aim of protecting parts of the country and clarifying the boundary between countryside and town. It is bizarre that Bromsgrove has been allocated only 50 more houses than Wychhavon, which has only a quarter as much greenbelt land.
The way in which the figures have been handed down by the Labour-controlled Worcestershire county council is frustrating, but it is outrageous that it is understood—although the county council will not clarify the location of the sites—that Worcestershire has enough brownfield sites to accommodate 50 per cent., if not more, of our housing target. Why did not Worcestershire, in making the allocation, do as the Government would presumably expect and seek out those sites for use before distributing the housing targets willy nilly around the various districts, without attention to the needs of the district that deserved the most protection?
Our frustration is increased by the fact that Bromsgrove schools are now overflowing. It is a delightful place to live and it is popular, because the schools are excellent. My postbag is full of mail from disappointed parents unable to get their children into the schools of their choice. On the last occasion when a large area was handed over to developers—a place called the Oakalls in the centre of Bromsgrove—the district council asked that a new school should be built

255WH
as part of the dowry for the development. The county council turned that idea down, then changed its mind when it realised Bromsgrove's problem, but it was too late. The developers had offered other forms of dowry for that development. To have built a school at that stage would have meant paying market price, which would have been too expensive for the public purse.
We felt rather done down that the county did not properly consider our schooling, or our roads, when the figures were handed down. Our share of the roads budget is decided by the county council, yet one of the justifications for giving Worcestershire a disproportionate share of housing is that because we are so close to Birmingham, and many people who want to live in Bromsgrove will work in Birmingham, it makes sense to build houses in Bromsgrove. If that really is the county council's rationale for building more houses, I appeal for extra money to cope with the road problems that will be caused by yet more cars commuting into Birmingham and other cities every day. That is another reason for my disappointment with the figures.
The matter has caused a huge upset locally. A new Conservative council was elected in May last year and the demise of the previous Labour council was probably due to its proposal to build an arts centre on green land in the town centre, which was extremely unpopular in Bromsgrove. I suspect that it caused the Labour party to lose the election more dramatically than it would otherwise have done. The Labour council sat on proposals for further development in Bromsgrove; it was left to the new Conservative council to take the difficult decisions about which greenbelt land should be gobbled up in the Government's housing targets.
The issue is very fraught; for example, last night in Stoke Prior, one of the villages in my constituency, 200 people turned up to a public meeting to protest about the way in which the housing target affects their area. That is a lot of people to turn out to a public meeting on a cold February night, and people in many other villages in my constituency feel equally strongly. But if the Government insist, the houses will have to go somewhere and difficult decisions about which greenbelt landscape should be despoiled must be taken.
I pay tribute to the council leader, Councillor Nick Psirides, who has done a fantastic job in taking a grip on our new district council and grappling with the problems, keeping the public fully informed of the difficult decisions that are being forced on us by the Government's housing targets and giving people a chance to show their enormous strength of feeling. Councillor Psirides organised a Bromsgrove greenbelt pledge campaign and invited members of the public to telephone in support of it. So far, 2,050 calls have been made in support of maintaining Bromsgrove's greenbelt, and only 280 against. That shows my constituents' anxiety about the proposals.
I hope that the Minister will reconsider whether the present policy is in our best interests. The purpose of the debate is to plead with her to reconsider how the housing targets are allocated and to think about whether we are risking the greenbelt and the countryside beyond it by the "predict and provide" way of deciding housing allocation. The Government's target is for two thirds of new housing development to be on brownfield sites. That figure is all the more awesome when one considers
256WH
that Bromsgrove has no available brownfield site, yet our housing allocation is handed down without any consideration of that problem.
If the Government are serious about having two thirds of all new homes built on brownfield sites, they must do more to change the mechanisms of the planning and allocation process. As my constituents can tell the Minister, vast tracts of brownfield sites in Birmingham and across the west midlands conurbation are desperate for fresh investment to be reinvigorated. It would be much better to refurbish them for new homes and other developments than to gobble up more countryside. The planning process needs to be given much greater consideration if we are fundamentally to change these dynamics.
If the Government look at the demographic changes that are taking place, they will see that there will be more single people in households than families. Single people might like to use the facilities of the inner-city areas and to live in smaller attractive units. We have some good examples in Birmingham, where the inner city has been rejuvenated to provide lovely living accommodation.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Is the hon. Lady aware that the figure for the future suggested requirements for homes for single people does not just include single young people but older people and those with different marital circumstances. The simple idea that all those people can live above the shop, as it were, is not borne out by the figures.
Miss Kirkbride: I thought that I was going to be able to agree with the hon. Gentleman because it is those younger and older people who will need the new homes. Elderly people often like to live together near local shops and where they can enjoy the comfort and support of one another. It is just as appropriate for them to live in inner-city areas than outside in the countryside where they will need to use a car, which is expensive. They might be afraid of losing their driving licence if they became too ill and infirm. More use should be made of inner-city areas for young and old people. If the Government's two-thirds requirement for development means anything, why do they not do that?
Finally, and this is an ancillary point to our problems in the greenbelt in Bromsgrove, I turn to the reuse of agricultural buildings. We are having problems in our sensitive areas. Present planning guidance encourages the change of use of agricultural buildings to light industrial, and some inappropriate planning applications are being made in very rural areas where the roads are inadequate for industrial activity. There is a case for looking at the guidance. I understand that farmers need to make a living and that they have had great difficulties recently with farming policy, but change of use in the greenbelt is even more sensitive than in the countryside.
Will the Minister look at that so that the option of turning the footprint of agricultural buildings into housing rather than light industrial use can be more easily considered than under the present planning laws? In many cases in my constituency that would be a more desirable change of use than light industrial would be. On that note, I will sit down and allow the Minister time to respond. I look forward to her reply, which I hope will allow Bromsgrove to be reprieved from all this extra housing that could despoil our landscape.
1.19 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): As is customary, I congratulate the hon. Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) on securing the debate and on raising the important issue of development in the greenbelt. I am pleased that she shares the Government's commitment to the greenbelt, which has been demonstrated by the increase in greenbelt land since May 1997. She will be tired of hearing that that contrasts starkly with the record of the previous Government, who systematically took away greenbelt land during their last 10 years of office. She is right when she says that we should bring back land to the greenbelt. We need to turn around the legacy of a Government who substantially depleted this country of it.
I would like to set out the Government's general policies on development in the greenbelt and then to emphasise the importance of a planning system led by up-to-date development plans. I will also cover greenbelt and development issues relating to Worcestershire and Bromsgrove more specifically. The Government have stated many times their support for the greenbelt; but let me state it once again, for the record. We remain firm in our commitment to greenbelts. My hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Planning reaffirmed that in answering a question from the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir S. Chapman) as recently as 8 February.
Greenbelts are meant to remain open for as far ahead as can reasonably be foreseen, and there remains a strong presumption against inappropriate development within them. That does not mean, nor ever has, that development cannot take place in greenbelts. It does mean that inappropriate development can take place only where very special circumstances exist that outweigh the harm to the greenbelt. That is something that we take very seriously.
Government guidance on development or redevelopment of sites in the greenbelt is set out in planning policy guidance note 2. Local authorities must take its content into account in preparing their development plans, and it may also be material to decisions on individual planning applications and appeals. PPG2 states that most development in the greenbelt is inappropriate. There are a limited number of occasions when new buildings are not inappropriate, and that includes those used for agriculture and forestry. It also recognises that the re-use of existing buildings, with suitable safeguards, should not prejudice the openness of the greenbelt, since the buildings are already there.
If a proposal does not meet the criteria set out in PPG2, it will be viewed as inappropriate development. For permission to be granted, exceptional circumstances need to be demonstrated that outweigh the impact on the greenbelt.
Regional planning guidance sets the framework for greenbelt policy, including the direction of long-term development. Greenbelts are established through development plans. Many detailed greenbelt boundaries in England have been set in local plans and in old development plans, but in some areas, including Bromsgrove, detailed boundaries have not yet been
258WH
defined. Up-to-date approved boundaries are essential to provide certainty as to where policies on the greenbelt apply, and to enable proper consideration of development options.
In Bromsgrove, I understand that the greenbelt is broadly defined by the existing structure plan. However, the detailed boundaries will be confirmed only when the Bromsgrove local plan is adopted. The hon. Member for Bromsgrove failed to take that into account. As she said, there was some delay in Bromsgrove in getting the local plan adopted, but the delay was attributable to the whole council, not to one group within it.
In 1997, the local plan inspector recommended that the Bromsgrove local plan create areas of development restraint and safeguarded reserve areas of land to meet possible future requirements. Detailed boundaries for greenbelt were being drawn through the local plan process for the first time. I am pleased to learn that the council is in the process of preparing draft modifications and it is for the local authority to decide the extent to which they follow the inspector's recommendations.
As I said, not all the boundaries in Bromsgrove have been defined in detail. The hon. Lady mentioned 92 per cent., but that does not apply to boundaries that have been agreed and approved through a local plan process. When they are defined, they will need to be capable of enduring beyond 2001 without the need for frequent or short-term changes. Bromsgrove will therefore have an opportunity to make changes to the draft plan and bring it fully up-to-date. I appreciate that the local authority has difficult decisions to make. They are competing imperatives—that is the nature of planning. Elected representatives must take those difficult political decisions. However, I hope that the plan can be adopted as soon as possible.
The Government lay great store by authorities having up-to-date development plans to aid development control and to help to reconcile the often competing demands of development and of the protection of the environment and the locality. I am sure that the hon. Lady would want to assist in that process.
Planning policy guidance note 3 on housing, which will be published shortly, is an important document. It will play a key role in countering the irresponsible development policies that the previous Administration pursued for more than a decade. The hon. Lady talked about predict and provide, but we started to change that old way of doing things when we took office. We have adopted a predict, monitor and manage approach, which is much more flexible. The key points are rigourous local authority housing capacity assessments; a sequential approach to housing site identification, putting the reuse of brownfield sites before the use of greenfield sites; a phased land release system, again putting brownfield sites first; a more efficient use of land through higher housing densities and lower parking standards; a better quality of design; and a national target of 60 per cent. of new houses to be built on previously used land.
Miss Kirkbride: I am delighted to hear what the Minister is saying. Is it possible for Bromsgrove district

259WH
authority to wait for those new targets to be put in place? It could then use brownfield sites in Birmingham and we could keep our greenfield sites in Bromsgrove.
Ms Hughes: I am coming to some of those points, but I must say to the hon. Lady that it is not consistent with our approach for any one authority to shed its responsibility to contribute to the 60 per cent. brownfield target simply by saying that a local authority elsewhere should take up its share of responsibility. That is not what the process is about.
The hon. Lady said that Bromsgrove residents were concerned at the number of new houses that might be required in the district over the coming years. I understand that the new draft structure plan for Worcestershire adopts the housing allocation for the county that was set out in the regional planning guidance issued in 1998. I take issue with the way in which the hon. Lady portrayed the process of reaching the figures and allocating them to districts. The housing allocations were based on advice to the Secretary of State from the West Midlands local government association and were arrived at in partnership with other public and private sector interests, including Bromsgrove and other local housing authorities. To say that the Government hand down numbers is to misunderstand or mislead about the nature of the process, which is dynamic. Crucially, it involves a determination by local partners of the overall target and how it should be allocated.
As the strategic planning authority, Worcestershire county council has divided the overall provision between districts. The hon. Lady complained about that division, but the new structure plan is to go to public examination in July, when local authorities and others will have an opportunity to debate these important issues. My Department is in the process of preparing its formal response on the structure plan, so I cannot comment further, except to say that the figures are not set in concrete; Bromsgrove and other districts will be able to make their views known.
I appreciate the fact that Bromsgrove has less previously used land than other authorities. However, by applying a rigorous analysis of where that land is—taking the sequential approach in PPG3—Bromsgrove can at least go some way towards meeting its targets. The figures released today for the results of the individual local planning authority's contribution to the national land use database show that Bromsgrove has at least 46 hectares of previously developed land, not the zero hectares that the hon. Lady and the council leader have talked about.
There is an opportunity through proper process for Bromsgrove to make its views known on the matter.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Pupil Mobility
1.30 pm
Ms Karen Buck: I am grateful for the opportunity to air the important issue of the impact of high pupil mobility on schools. I am delighted that we have such a sound and comprehensive report as that prepared by Janet Dobson on which to base the debate and shape recommendations. I congratulate her and the Department for Education and Employment on commissioning the study.
A principal conclusion of the report is that many factors influence pupil mobility, including general social mobility of students, people moving around for work, and so forth. Given the area that I represent, my purpose is to concentrate on the issue as it affects London. I want to emphasise the joined-up nature of the problem of high pupil mobility, especially in inner-city communities. High turnover compounds and is compounded by problems caused by homelessness, which include poverty, and the dislocation and trauma experienced by many asylum seekers who do not have English as a first language. To set the context, 40,000 householders are in temporary accommodation in London, 5,000 in bed and breakfast. The total, including asylum seekers, is 55,000.
The timing of the debate is apposite, because I am aware that during the recently started second stage of research, and no doubt after the final report lands on the Minister's desk, minds were and will be concentrated on vital issues such as strategies to reduce mobility. I hope that the Minister can assure us that the issue of pupil mobility as raised in the report will be considered in the housing Green Paper, as the two issues are closely allied. Also important are the additional costs placed on schools with high mobility levels, especially where the turnover involves pupils who score highly on other indices of deprivation, and the equally serious problem of high teacher mobility, which tends to occur in exactly those schools that experience high pupil turnover. I hope that the research and the debate that it inspires will lead to a greater understanding of the costs involved and the predicament of schools and their staff. They are struggling to raise educational standards under the pressures that high mobility brings.
Some of the figures, and the human stories that they represent, are dramatic. Last week, the head teacher of a school in my constituency told me about a five-year-old boy who was inducted into school on a Monday and disappeared from it the next day, having been rehoused as a result of a shift in temporary accommodation in Portsmouth. The little boy arrived in the country in November speaking no English, and his day at Wilberforce school was a taste of the third school that he had attended since his arrival.
While I prepared for the debate, other local head teachers gave me similar examples. One school saw the equivalent of one new arrival a day between the start of term and the day three weeks later when the inspectors arrived from the Office for Standards in Education. In a year 6 class in Kensington, only one child sitting standard assessment tests at key stage 2 had been present since key stage 1. One in three children in Hackney have not been at their primary schools for the full four years of the key stage 2 curriculum.

261WH
As the Dobson research suggests, mobile pupils are disproportionately likely to have lower levels of achievement at entry. For example, children in Westminster who joined primary school after key stage 1 are three times more likely than their settled peer group to have limited English. Levels of attainment at key stage 2 among pupils joining late are 19 percentage points lower for English, and 12 percentage points lower for maths, than levels achieved by pupils attending school from the start.
A lot of that can be explained by the high incidence of mobile pupils with English as an additional language. However, an extra problem arises from pupils not having resources in the home to enable them to study or to draw on the ideal level of parental support needed to help them to achieve.
There are no excuses for low achievement. All the heads to whom I spoke reiterated that each pupil should realise his or her maximum potential. However, I was struck by the close correlation between school achievement as measured by test results and levels of pupil mobility. In one of the boroughs that I represent, the combined percentage of unexpected leavers and unexpected admissions ranged from 43 per cent. to 2 per cent. I pay tribute to the excellent work done in our high-achieving schools, but it is clear from statistics that many of them do not face the pressures of schools in which almost half the pupils change schools in a year.
I hope with all my heart that that fact will be more fully appreciated by Ofsted, by the media and throughout the country because, only by recognising it, can we appreciate the level of achievement of staff and pupils in schools with a high turnover, whose efforts are little short of heroic.
Mr. Bob Blizzard: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problems that she is describing are also evident in seaside towns? A school in Lowestoft in my constituency counted the number of pupils in one group as it moved through the four years of the school and found that only one third of them had been with the school throughout. It had a mobility rate of about two thirds. A break in education is the biggest detriment to progress. Schools need resources to support transient pupils to ensure that non-transient pupils do not suffer. My hon. Friend is absolutely right: Ofsted must take into account that factor when placing a school in a group, by which it sets the standard assessment test results.
Ms Buck: I agree that there is a serious problem in seaside towns. My hon. Friend's point strengthens my argument.
High pupil mobility also places cost pressures on schools. Teachers must assess and offer support to a new child sometimes every two or three days, set up records and prepare teaching materials. That takes considerable time and energy. Induction can easily add one or two hours per pupil, which, when multiplied by 60, 70, 80 or 90 pupils in one school, quickly eats up staff time. Records need to be prepared for early leavers to be passed on to their next school, which, again, when multiplied by the number of pupils involved adds to the pressure.
262WH
In the secondary sector, the number of pupils spirals. One comprehensive in my constituency dealt with 284 unexpected arrivals and leavers in one year. Mary Marsh, the head of Holland Park comprehensive school, estimates that the total processing time in her school costs the equivalent of a teacher's salary. It is not only teacher and administrative time that is involved; schools provide folders, paper, textbooks and other materials, which, in high pupil mobility schools, are unfortunately lost to a far higher degree than in schools in which the pupil population is stable.
There are even more stresses. Many London schools with high pupil mobility take in the children of asylum seekers. We are talking not about high proportions of children with English as an additional language, but about 15, 25 or 35 different languages being spoken in a school. In Holland Park school and North Westminster school, the number of different languages total 70, so the pressure is multiplied. In year 11 at Holland Park school, 47 per cent. of pupils are late entries, 45 per cent. have English as an additional language and 40 per cent. of pupils are on free school meals.
The need for additional resources for schools with large numbers of pupils with an additional language is already recognised in the system, but the additional complexity of working with pupils who come from many different countries, who speak different languages and are from different cultural traditions is not yet fully understood. In many schools, children arrive with little or no English. A child may be the only one in the school who comes from a particular country and speaks its language. That makes the teacher's job harder and adds to the sense of isolation and dislocation of the child.
Taking all the causes of high mobility together and the additional stress factors that are often linked to it—homelessness, the pressures of life in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, family breakdown, domestic violence, war trauma, the psychological damage done to parents who may have undergone torture—it is scarcely surprising if such schools find it harder than usual to build a strong identity. Greater than average behaviour problems in schools may result from such a high level of instability and turbulence.
Children who remain in a school throughout their school life are also affected, which is an important lesson that we need to learn from the research. We do not sufficiently appreciate the damaging effect that the regular fracturing of relationships that children have built up with others who move on may have. Families in temporary accommodation are often given no notice that they have to leave and are told to move overnight; the children are therefore moved from schools without having a chance to say goodbye. That can be damaging for all the children involved.
As I said, I am aware that a high level of pupil mobility is by no means only a London issue. That is supported by the Dobson research. I have not touched on the problems experienced by traveller children, excluded children, children in care and the experience of seaside towns or army bases. However, as the initial report states, London is unique in terms of the combination and concentration of factors generating high pupil mobility. It is also unusual in having a high turnover in both the primary and secondary sectors. The research shows that, in many other areas, high pupil mobility is concentrated in primary schools.

263WH
I realise that the research is at too early a stage to expect firm commitments from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. However, I hope that she will give general support to the recommendations in the first stage report and to the need for greater awareness of the multiple pressures with which schools have to deal. We need more data on which to make decisions and a standard methodology: one of the report's findings is that information is collected differently in different boroughs and schools. We need more support for tracking children who often move regularly between schools. I am sympathetic to the inclusion of some form of exceptional circumstance factor in the ethnic minority and traveller achievement grant, to help meet the needs of highly mobile groups, whatever the underlying cause of their mobility, and to help promote best practice in schools. I hope that we can look forward to greater recognition of the problem, and to greater compensation for schools experiencing high mobility, from a Government who are rightly demonstrating their commitment to high standards of achievement for all.
1.42 pm
Mr. Gordon Marsden: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing this debate on an extremely important question. As my hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) said, this is a problem that particularly affects seaside towns. I wish to say a little about that from my perspective of the Member of Parliament for Blackpool.
The situation in seaside towns is different from that in London in the sense that our populations tend to be more ethnically homogenous. We therefore do not have the problem to which my hon. Friend referred, but we have large numbers of people moving in and out, seeking seasonal employment, and that obviously makes a substantial contribution to pupil mobility. Those are often people with few skills, usually young people with families—with all the attendant problems—with low income, poor health, and drug and alcohol problems. They often live in poor conditions in bed-and-breakfast accommodation. The non-routine admission pupils from that transient population often have special educational needs and behavioural difficulties, and are underachieving. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary appreciates those significant factors.
The educational development plan that Blackpool borough council prepared two years ago concluded that the borough's high level of pupil turnover—something in the order of 1,200 primary school pupils were non-routine admissions in 1997–98—has a destructive effect on schools, strains teachers and resources and affects teachers' ability to make a sustained impact on achievement levels. A headmaster in my constituency with a primary school with an annual pupil turnover of 48 per cent. said:
"Large numbers of pupils moving in and out of the school makes target setting and tracking pupils' progress extremely difficult."
That also has implications for the extent to which high mobility will, if not properly monitored, frustrate the Government's attempts to measure added values in school league tables.
The final point again picks up on what my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North said. I am encouraged by
264WH
the Government's response so far, not only in terms of commissioning the original Dobson report which is seminal in this respect but because it indicates what they propose for the future. As a member of the Select Committee on Education and Employment which inquired into the work of Ofsted—as part of the inquiry, we raised with the chief inspector the issue of monitoring high pupil mobility—I am delighted that the chief inspector acknowledged on separate occasions that it was an important factor which he and the Government would take formally into account in future Ofsted inspections and in the inspection process. It is a key issue north and south which affects not only inner-city areas but seaside towns. I am delighted that my hon. Friend has raised it.
1.45 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) on securing today's debate. I also congratulate her and my hon. Friends the Members for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) and for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) for their well-informed, measured and intelligent contributions. Like them, I welcome the opportunity to discuss this important complex issue. As they so ably outlined, there is evidence that pupil mobility is a serious problem for schools, local education authorities and, most of all, pupils. I associate myself with the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North. I too, believe that in many schools with high pupil mobility, teachers and non-teaching staff do a fantastic job supporting pupils. They deserve recognition for the good work that they do.
As my hon Friend said, in January 1999 my Department provided additional funds to a Nuffield Foundation research project being undertaken by Dr. Janet Dobson and colleagues at the migration research unit of University College, London. Department for Employment and Education funding enabled a report to be produced in October 1999; the final report is not expected until June 2000. The key objectives of this research were to review current knowledge of child migration, establish what was known about the scale, nature and implications of high pupil mobility for the functioning of schools, and develop a better understanding of regional variations.
My three hon. Friends displayed a good understanding of some of the factors highlighted by the report, but it is worth reminding ourselves of what research discovered about the range of factors associated with high mobility. The report identified high-mobility groups, such as travellers, refugees, asylum seekers and the children of armed forces families. It identified circumstances of high mobility such as social deprivation, family break-up, temporary housing and seasonal work. As we heard, it also identified high-mobility areas, which tended to be concentrated around London and other cities and conurbations, and in coastal resorts and areas with a large number of armed services families. The situation is clearly complex, with no cause, and, therefore, no easy solutions. We have recognised that in the debate. Overall, the study found that family break-up was the most significant factor contributing to high pupil mobility. This has implications for our response.

265WH
For the research, 66 local education authorities provided data on a high-mobility primary school. In 80 per cent of those schools, the mobility rate was 20 per cent. or more. Ten LEAs provided examples of primary schools with a rate of 70 per cent. or more. I accept what my hon. Friend said about difficulties and numbers in secondary and primary schools. However, average mobility is higher in primary schools than secondary schools, although some London LEAs have high rates in both. That highlights a problem in primary schools, which are often relatively small with little administrative support.
My hon. Friend rightly identified London as having a unique combination of factors generating pupil mobility in schools. There is a particular problem in relation to children from overseas. About 70 per cent. of children who came to schools as new pupils between the ages of five and 15 in the year preceding the 1991 census were from overseas.
Other specific factors associated with London to which my hon. Friend alluded are homelessness, temporary housing and exclusions—inner and outer London have the highest exclusion rate. Children from armed forces and traveller families also have a presence in Greater London.
Important implications for individual schools should inform our policy response. The study found that children joining schools at non-standard times are, on average, achieving less in key-stage tests and GCSEs than those who complete a whole key stage or career in the same school.
Changing schools does not per se lead to lower than average achievement for children or schools. We must take account of other factors leading to high mobility that also affect outcomes and tend to be linked to exclusions, social deprivation and lack of fluency in English. Lower achievement by mobile pupils, compared with that of non-mobile pupils, seems to be associated with social deprivation and/or a lack of fluency in English, which is exacerbated by high mobility.
I accept my hon. Friend's contention that high mobility has an impact on school target-setting, measuring performance, using value added to reflect progress and planning teaching. Furthermore, it makes heavy demands on staff time and resources which, as has been rightly pointed out, has implications for the whole school, not just mobile pupils. I am sympathetic to the fact that high turnover affects a school budget over the course of a whole year.
The Government are addressing the problem by undertaking a range of policies. Our early-years policies will ensure that children who benefit from nursery education, especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds, are more likely to succeed in primary school. The sure start programme, which has an emphasis on support for families, may help to address mobility at source, especially in relation to family breakdown.
Baseline assessment will be of value if records are passed on quickly between schools. We have introduced a common transfer form and new regulations on the
266WH
transfer of records. Increasing investment in information and communication technology and in administrative support for schools will make that transfer smoother.
My hon. Friend rightly emphasised the importance of home-school links in high-quality education and pupil achievement. The development of such links may be extremely time consuming in a high-mobility school, even when all parents are fluent in English. The report emphasises that a positive home-school relationship is likely to be a mjor factor in helping some children to settle in and start to learn. Therefore, the Department is supporting schools by providing guidance and examples of good practice to build that important home-school relationship.
My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South mentioned the importance of measuring performance to raise standards and the difficulty of calculating measures of value added for schools with high pupil turnover, but nevertheless, the Government are committed to ensuring that that is done. As he said, Ofsted's work in taking account of pupil mobility will help with future developments of value-added measures, as will the Government's introduction of unique pupil numbers and the ability to track individual pupils to support their learning and provide more valid measures of achievement.
Schools with high pupil mobility often have to set targets without knowing which children will still be in school at the end of the year. Schools can set additional targets to reflect their priorities. However, many schools find setting targets a challenge. That is why the consultation on target setting, which is due to be sent to schools and LEAs later this term, will invite suggestions from schools with high mobility on how regulations might take account of such matters.
The role of Ofsted has been mentioned. It is important that, under the new Ofsted framework, inspectors will collect data on pupil mobility and comment, if appropriate, on the likely impact on performance. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North made a point about benchmarking. Detailed information about pupil mobility will be not only collected but made available to inspectors and included in the PANDA—the performance and assessment data—and the PICSI—the pre-inspection context and school indicator reports issued to schools by Ofsted.
It is worth mentioning that the excellence in cities programme, which focuses on raising achievement, will make a positive contribution to fostering stability in some of those areas of London, to which my hon. Friend referred, where it is a particular challenge. Some pupils experience the effects not only of mobility but of not having English as their first language or of coming from overseas, so it is important not only that our ethnic minority achievement grant, which replaced the education element of the Home Office section 11 grant in 1998, has been increased by 7 per cent. compared with last year, but that it will go directly to schools so that head teachers can use it where it is needed most—for

267WH
example, to target pupils who need teaching or assisted support in English as an additional language, or to work with local communities. Although I recognise that that will not completely solve the financial problems, it is important as an extra support for those children, as my hon. Friend rightly said, who have language as an additional difficulty as well as mobility problems.
Pupil numbers will always fluctuate for a variety of reasons, reflecting the mobility of pupils and families. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my assurance that the Government are sympathetic to the challenges faced by schools and pupils. We will continue to study the results of the research to find a way in which to support those schools both financially and in our work to raise standards. The research has enabled us to clarify what we mean by mobility and to identify patterns of
268WH
mobility, and it will inform our policies at school, LEA and national levels. The Department will continue to note the emerging findings.
My hon. Friend is right to say that pupil mobility is an issue for schools, but it is also an issue where joined-up action across Government is extremely important. The implications are not of concern to the educaton sector alone, but I assure my hon. Friend that they are of great concern to the Department. We must highlight the impact of health improvement strategies and urban regeneration, housing and social inclusion policies. That will require collaboration across services. I assure my hon. Friend that we take the issue very seriously.
It being Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Legal Advisers
  Mr. Burnett
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance his Department has issued to ensure that legal advisers working on a conditional fee basis make disclosures of that fact to any other party to litigation or to a transaction; and if the guidance provides that such disclosures be made. [110034]

  Mr. Lock
  At present there is no need for special guidance as the opponent's liability for costs is unaffected if a claimant chooses to finance litigation through a conditional fee agreement. However, the success fee in a conditional fee agreement and the premium for any insurance policy against costs will become recoverable from the losing party from 1 April, when the relevant provisions of the Access to Justice Act 1999 come into force. On 1 February, the Government published a report entitled "The Government's Conclusions Following Consultation on Conditional Fees: Sharing the Costs of Litigation". In view of the opponent's potential liability for increased costs if there is a success fee or insurance premium, the report includes recommendations to the Civil Procedure Rule Committee as to how rules of court might deal with issues of disclosure. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Nottinghamshire Police (PFI)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the progress of the PFI project involving vehicle supply, support and maintenance for Nottinghamshire Police; and if he will make a statement. [110345]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I understand that negotiations between the Nottinghamshire Police and the preferred bidders for this project are continuing, with a view to a contract being signed early in the next financial year.

  Gambling Review Body
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he plans to announce the appointment of the Chairman of the Gambling Review Body and the body's terms of reference. [110759]

  Mr. Straw
  Further to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) on 8 December 1999,Official Report, column 534W, I have today appointed Sir Alan Budd as Chairman of the Gambling Review Body.
  538W
  Sir Alan Budd is Provost of Queen's College, Oxford, and a former Chief Economic Adviser to the Treasury. The position is unpaid.

  We will make a further announcement on the membership of the Review Body in the next few weeks. We hope it will start work shortly after Easter to report by the Summer 2001.

  The terms of Reference for the gambling review are as follows:
  Consider the current state of the gambling industry and the ways in which it might change over the next 10 years in the light of economic pressures, the growth of e-commerce, technological developments and wider leisure industry and international trends.
  Consider the social impact of gambling and the costs and benefits.
  Consider, and make recommendations for, the kind and extent of regulation appropriate for gambling activities in Great Britain, having regard to:
  their wider social impact;
  the need to protect the young and vulnerable from exploitation and to protect all gamblers from unfair practices;
  the importance of preventing gambling from being carried out in a way which allows crime disorder or public nuisance;
  the need to keep the industry free from infiltration by organised and other serious crime, and from money laundering risks;
  the desirability of creating an environment in which the commercial opportunities for gambling, including its international competitiveness, maximise the United Kingdom's economic welfare; and
  the implications for the current system of taxation, and the scope for its further development.
  Consider the need for, and, if necessary, recommend new machinery appropriate for carrying out that regulation which achieves a more consistent and streamlined approach than is now possible and which is financed by the gambling industry itself.
  Consider the availability and effectiveness of treatment programmes for problem gamblers and make recommendations for their future provision, potential costings and funding.
  In conducting this review, the body should not consider changes to the National Lottery, but it will need to look at the impact on the Lottery of any proposed changes, including an assessment of the potential effect on the income to good causes.

  Sex Offenders
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many prisoners are undergoing treatment on a sex offender therapy programme; how many prisoners have been recommended for treatment on such a course in the past year; and by how much demand for places outstrips supply; [110082]

  (2) what is the average time between recommendation for treatment on a sex offender therapy programme and placement on such a course. [110083]

  Mr. Boateng
  Records are kept centrally of the number of sex offender treatment programmes running at any one time, but not of the number of offenders participating in them. However, given that there is an average of eight inmates attending each of the 48 programmes currently in progress, about 384 prisoners will be receiving treatment at the moment.

  No records are kept centrally of the number of prisoners who have been recommended for a place on the programme and this information could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. The programme is open to all adult male prisoners who have been convicted of a sexual offence, to those whose index offence appears to have had

  539W
  a sexual motive and to those who have been convicted of a sexual offence in the past and are assessed as needing to participate in the programme. Candidates must be assessed as suitable for participation in the programme and they must be willing to participate in it.

  There are considerable variations between the dates on which individual prisoners are assessed for participation in the programme and the commencement of treatment. It would not be feasible to make places available on demand for all prisoners who need to undergo it, and the Prison Service, therefore, operates a waiting list system. For determinate sentenced prisoners, the order of priority is determined by an assessment of risk of re-offending balanced against time left to serve; for life sentenced prisoners by their tariff date, or by proximity of the next parole review if the tariff has expired or none was set. In addition to that, programme treatment managers need to ensure that each group has a balance of different types of offender. This means that a prisoner at the top of a waiting list may not necessarily be selected for the next programme. For these reasons, average waiting times between assessment and participation have little significance and are not recorded centrally.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what action he has taken in response to the report by HM Inspector of Prisons into Wymott Prison; and what plans he has to increase the provision of sex offender therapy programme places there. [110084]

  Mr. Boateng
  In accordance with the protocol for handling inspection reports, the Prison Service produced an action plan within 30 working days of publication of the report. All but three of the 104 recommendations have been accepted, and an updated action plan showing the progress made will be produced in April 2000, nine months after publication of the report.

  Additional resources have been made available under the Government's Comprehensive Spending Review and the number of sex offender treatment programmes is set to increase as follows: 48 places in 1999–2000, 56 places in 2000–01, and 72 places in 2001–02.

  Immigration and Asylum (Scottish Executive)
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has held with the Scottish Executive concerning a bilateral concordat in relation to the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and if he will make a statement. [109225]

  Mrs. Roche
  Implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 in Scotland is being pursued in accordance with the administrative arrangements set out in the general concordat between the Home Office and the Scottish Executive. In particular, the National Asylum Support Service is maintaining close contact with the Scottish Executive to ensure the effective implementation of the new asylum support arrangements in Scotland.

  Cycling Offences
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list by police force the number of fixed penalty cycling offences committed monthly since 1 August 1999. [110021]
  540W
  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Information on the new fixed penalty offences introduced on 1 August 1999 is not yet available.

  Each police force has been asked to monitor the fixed penalty provisions which came into force on 1 August 1999, and the figures will be published later in the year.

  Monthly figures, however, are not being collected centrally.

  National Fire College
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in relation to the National Fire College at Moreton-in-Marsh, Gloucestershire, when he will commence implementing the recommendations of the Options Review and over what timescale the implementation will be completed; what discussions he has had with the unions about the recommendations; and what discussions he has had with the private sector about the recommendation to form a private public sector partnership. [110228]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) on 20 December 1999,Official Report, columns 370–71W. This makes it clear that we have invited the views of all interested parties, including the trade unions, by 18 February 2000. We shall also be seeking the advice of the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council. We will take further decisions on implementation in the light of these consultations.

  Polling Booths
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans he has to increase the accessibility of polling booths to the aged who are disabled; [109988]

  (2) if he will estimate the increase in the number of people aged 65 or over who would vote in a national election if all polling booths were accessible to those with disabilities [109987]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Representation of the People Bill includes measures specifically aimed at increasing the accessibility of polling places to disabled voters. In addition, guidance on national minimum access standards for polling places was issued in June 1999; new guidance on disabled access to electoral services is being developed, and grants are available to local authorities for temporary ramps and polling screens. No statistics are collected on the age or disability of voters.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109932]

  Mr. Straw
  The following Remploy products have been purchased by my Department over the last three years.
  541W

  Year

  Product

  1997

  Office furniture Binders

  1998

  Office furniture Binders

  1999

  Office furniture

  Franchise
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for legislation that would allow long-term residents in the UK from member states of the European Union to be able to vote in all UK elections. [109997]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  European Union citizens can vote in local and European Parliamentary elections in the member state in which they are resident. We have no plans unilaterally to extend these voting rights to Parliamentary elections in this country.

  West Mercia Police
  Mr. Michael J. Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many civilians were employed by West Mercia Police Authority in each year since 1979. [110120]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The information requested is set out in the table.

  West Mercia Constabulary Civilian support staff—1979 to 1999

  Year (As at 31 March)

  Number of civilians

  1979

  493

  1980

  519

  1981

  540.5

  1982

  560.5

  1983

  604.5

  1984

  701.5

  1985

  742.5

  1986

  760

  1987

  750

  1988

  744

  1989

  772

  1990

  832

  1991

  836

  1992

  850

  1993

  925

  1994

  918.5

  1995

  949

  1996

  963.7

  1997

  942.1

  1998

  974.6

  1999

  975.2

  1999 (30 September)

  963.6

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Gerrard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what is his policy with regard to the detention of asylum claimants from states which are party to an association agreement with the European Union; [110031]
  542W
  (2) what information is given by his Department to asylum seekers from states which are party to an association agreement with the European Union regarding their rights to establish themselves in the UK. [110032]

  Mrs. Roche
  Association agreements do not provide an automatic right of establishment. Information regarding the right of establishment is not provided routinely, but is available to asylum seekers and others on request.

  Decisions on whether detention is appropriate are made on a case-by-case basis. Detention is used only as a last resort, and only those who are inadmissible passengers, illegal entrants or subject to deportation action may be detained. The existence of an association agreement between an asylum seeker's country of origin and the European Union is not taken into account.

  Burns Inquiry
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) who determined the criteria used in drawing up lists of those invited to(a) give oral evidence to the Burns Inquiry, (b) attend seminar sessions to discuss commissioned research and (c) set up public meetings for the Burns Inquiry team; [109949]

  (2) who set down the criteria used to determine which organisations were consulted in drawing up the list of hunting events for members of the Burns Inquiry to attend. [109954]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Committee of Inquiry into Hunting has been set up as a committee which is independent of Government. Terms of reference have been given to the Committee, as set out in the reply by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman) on 9 December 1999,Official Report, columns 617–18W.

  The conduct of the Committee, within those terms of reference, is a matter for the Chairman and the members of the Inquiry team.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the(a) individuals put forward by interested parties and (b) organisations approached for nominations for membership of the Burns Inquiry. [109953]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Organisations and Government Departments approached for suggestions for names of potential members of the Inquiry team into hunting included:

  The Cabinet Office;

  Campaign 2000 (the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the International Fund for Animal Welfare and The League Against Cruel Sports);

  The Country Landowners Association;

  The Countryside Agency;

  The Countryside Alliance;

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions;

  The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food;

  The National Trust;

  The office of the Secretary of State for Wales; and

  The Wildlife Network.

  543W
  We consulted organisations on the basis that nominations would be received in confidence. It would not be right, therefore, for me to divulge individual names.

  Electronic Tracking
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, pursuant to his answer of 8 February 2000,Official Report, column 142W, on electronic tracking, how many offenders have been granted a variation in the hours of a home detention curfew by prison governors; and in the case of each offender on how many occasions the variation was granted. [110135]

  Mr. Boateng
  The information requested is not held centrally and could be made available only at disproportionate cost by an examination of individual prisoner records.

  Crime (Young People)
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will provide financial support for the work of prisons with schools to direct young people away from crime; [109526]

  (2) if he will make it his policy for prisons to use serving prisoners in controlled circumstances to assist young people to address their offending behaviour; [109527]

  (3) if he will provide financial support for the work of prisons in developing programmes to address the offending behaviour of young people referred from local courts and youth offending teams; [109525]

  (4) if he will make it his policy to include prison staff on youth offending teams. [109524]

  Mr. Boateng
  Under the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local authorities must plan how youth justice service systems will be delivered locally. If they choose, they may seek to involve the Prison Service in the delivery of those services, including work with schools and the secondment of prison staff to youth offending teams. Funding for this work will, however, in general have to be found from youth offending team resources, since the Prison Service is funded to work with offenders in custody.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the previously planned meetings, and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109869]

  Mr. Straw
  No meetings between my Department and its Austrian counterparts have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government, since, so far as I am aware, none were planned.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what subjects were discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109902]
  544W
  Mr. Straw
  My Department does not hold a central record of bilateral meetings with counterparts in other European Union member states. But bilateral meetings with Austrian counterparts in recent years have included:a visit to Vienna by the United Kingdom's then K4 Co-ordinator on 16–17 September 1997;
  a visit I made to Vienna on 14 May 1998 for talks with the then Austrian Ministers of Interior and Justice; and
  a return visit to London 25 November 1998 by the then Austrian Interior Minister.

  All three meetings were in connection with the United Kingdom and Austrian presidencies of the European Union and covered a variety of topics on the Justice and Home Affairs Council agenda.

  Hunting with Dogs
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the Government's plans to ban hunting with dogs. [109549]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Foster) on 11 November 1999,Official Report, columns 787–88W.

  Sunday Elections
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the additional cost per elector of pilot schemes under which elections take place on Sunday. [109767]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A number of local authorities have applied to run pilot schemes which involve weekend voting but no scheme which provides for voting on Sunday only will be run.

  Trial by Jury
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the(a) number and (b) cost of additional appeals to the Crown Court against the (i) verdicts and (ii) sentences of magistrates, under his proposals to restrict the right to trial by jury. [108099]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer 2 February 2000]: Only 1 per cent. of defendants appeal against conviction and sentence following a trial in the magistrates courts and the model which has been used to estimate costs assumes that the effect will be de minimis. Even if as many as 10 per cent. of previously electing defendants chose to appeal following conviction after a contested trial, there would be fewer than 200 additional appeals, at a cost of less than £250,000.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Broadcasting
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions he has had with the EU authorities on the framework for public financing for broadcasting with special reference to licence fee supplements. [110072]
  545W
  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: My officials met Commission officials on 26 January, primarily to discuss the Commission's decision on BBC News 24. The various funding options identified in the report of the independent panel, chaired by Gavyn Davies, "Review of the Future Funding of the BBC", were briefly discussed.

  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which(a) organisations and (b) individuals he has met to discuss broadcasting since 1 May 1997. [109995]

  Janet Anderson
  My right hon. Friend has discussed broadcasting with a wide range of organisations and individuals since 1 May 1997, and with many of them a number of times. Diary records are not kept by subject matter and it would not be possible to identify all such meetings, formal and informal, in order to provide the comprehensive list sought.

  Museums, Libraries and Archives Council
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport with which body the Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has a contract of employment. [110108]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The Chief Executive of the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council has a contract of employment with the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLAC).

  New Millennium Experience Company
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what procedures were followed in the selection of a candidate for the new Chief Executive of the New Millennium Experience Company; [109470]

  (2) if he will make a statement of the role of Lord Falconer of Thoroton in the appointment of the new Chief Executive of the New Millennium Experience Company. [109472]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: The NMEC Board appointed Pierre-Yves Gerbeau as Chief Executive of the Company on 7 February. Mr. Gerbeau's appointment reflects the view that a different approach and different skills are now needed to manage the project successfully during its year of operation. A number of possible candidates were considered before deciding to appoint Mr. Gerbeau. Under the terms of the Financial Memorandum governing relations between the NMEC and its Shareholder, Lord Falconer of Thoroton has approved the appointment.

  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what estimate he has made of the balance of the revenues of the New Millennium Experience Company and the operating costs of the Dome. [106354]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: It is too early at this stage to make a conclusive estimate but I fully expect the New Millennium Experience Company to meet its income targets and complete the Millennium Experience project within the original £758 million cash-limited budget.

  Millennium Dome
  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport which schools in the Colchester constituency will be eligible to receive free tickets to visit the Millennium Dome; how many pupils in each school will be eligible; and what are the arrangements for the allocation of tickets. [106467]

  Janet Anderson
  Every school in the Colchester constituency is eligible to apply for up to 100 free tickets to the Dome under the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) Education Tour scheme. Up to 1,000,000 free tickets are available. The available free tickets are allocated over a series of ballots. The first ballot, for tickets available in February, March and April, took place in November 1999. The second ballot, for tickets available in May, June and July, will take place in February 2000. The third ballot, for tickets available in September, October and November, will take place in June 2000. The final ballot, for tickets available in December, will take place in September 2000. NMEC, through the Education and Learning Experience Managers in its 12 offices countrywide (Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, the North-East, Yorkshire and Humberside, the North-West, the East Midlands, the West Midlands, the East, the South-East, the South-West and London), and through the regional media will continue to ensure that all schools are fully aware of the free ticket scheme and of the education visit arrangements.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) which schools in the Chorley constituency will be eligible to receive free tickets to visit the Millennium Dome; [105039]

  (2) how many pupils in each school in the Chorley constituency will be eligible for free tickets to visit the Millennium Dome. [105040]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Every school in the Chorley constituency is eligible to apply for up to 100 free tickets to the Dome under the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) Education Tour scheme. Up to 1,000,000 free tickets are available. The available free tickets are allocated over a series of ballots. The first ballot, for tickets available in February, March and April, took place in November 1999. The second ballot, for tickets available in May, June and July, will take place in February 2000. The third ballot, for tickets available in September, October and November, will take place in June 2000. The final ballot, for tickets available in December, will take place in September 2000. Approximately 12 per cent. of all free tickets are available to schools in the North West region as this is the approximate proportion of the school population in that region. NMEC, through the Education and Learning Experience Managers in its 12 offices countrywide (Scotland, Wales, northern Ireland, the north-east, Yorkshire and Humberside, the north-west, the east Midlands, the west Midlands, the east, the south-east, the south-west and London), and through the regional media will continue to ensure that all schools are fully aware of the free ticket scheme and of the education visit arrangements.

  Mr. Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what provision is made for students with learning difficulties attending further
  547W
  education establishments to be allocated free tickets to visit the Millennium Experience; and if he will make a statement. [108724]

  Janet Anderson
  The New Millennium Experience Company are not making free tickets for the Dome available to further education establishments. Free tickets are available to up to 1 million schoolchildren aged between eight and 16. Groups of students are charged £14.50 per head and student card holders wishing to make their own arrangements pay £16.50. NMEC is happy to discuss any special needs which particular visitors and groups might have—for example, special needs groups can bring an enabler with them free of charge and can use the on site car park, provided they are Orange Badge Holders and book beforehand. Hosts can be prepared to receive a particular group and ensure that its members are able to move through zones at their own pace, and buggies and wheelchairs can be arranged. All special needs requirements can be arranged on the Dome ticket line (0870 606 2000) when booking Dome tickets.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what travel assistance is being provided to schools in the Chorley constituency visiting the Dome. [105041]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: The costs attributable to the New Millennium Experience Company's (NMEC) Education Tour scheme at the Dome, including administration of the scheme, the tickets themselves and the management costs of implementing it throughout the year, are being met by NMEC from the Millennium Experience project budget. It is, however, established practice with school trips for the schools to make arrangements for travel and subsistence themselves. NMEC provides all schools with details of travel companies who are offering packages specifically aimed at schools. Additionally, many schools are also well placed to negotiate favourable deals through their established relationships with local travel operators.

  Millennium Experience (Sponsorship)
  Mr. Spring
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if he will list the Millennium Experience zones for which final sponsorship arrangements remain outstanding; [106407]

  (2) if he will list the (a) zones and (b) corporate sponsors of the Millennium Experience for which agreed sponsorship moneys remain outstanding. [106207]

  Janet Anderson
  [holding answer 27 January 2000]: The target for the New Millennium Experience Company was to raise £150 million of sponsorship value towards its overall income requirement of £758 million. While the company's approach to sponsorship focused on individual exhibit zones, other forms of sponsorship—for example Official Supplier status—were also pursued and achieved. Consequently, once the £150 million was delivered, the company could remain within its £758 million cash-limited budget and deliver the Millennium Experience as planned, even if some exhibit zones were without sponsorship support. Sponsorship support has been achieved for the Work, Learning, Talk, Journey, Body, Shared Ground, Self Portrait, Home Planet, Money
  548W
  and Mind zones. Sponsorship support has also been achieved for Our Town Stage and donations have been received for the Faith zone.

  In addition, sponsorship has been achieved for Skyscape and the Greenwich Pavilion, which are integral parts of the Millennium Experience but outside the Dome. Exhibit zones without sponsorship support, but delivered within the cash-limited budget, are Play, Rest, Timekeepers, Living Island and the Millennium Show in the Central Arena.

  Those sponsors who have signed contracts with NMEC have paid, and are paying, sponsorship moneys according to the terms of their contracts. The three contracts, outstanding as at 10 February and detailed in my answer to the hon. Member for East Surrey (Mr. Ainsworth) on 14 February 2000, Official Report, column 442W, are being taken forward urgently by NMEC and moneys due under their terms will be paid accordingly. The actual amounts are subject to confidentiality provisions applicable to both parties.

  BBC
  Mr. Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if he will take steps to widen the accountability of the BBC. [109993]

  Janet Anderson
  The independent review panel on the future funding of the BBC made a number of recommendations on BBC transparency and accountability. We intend to announce our decisions on those recommendations shortly.

  Transfrontier Television
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to ratify the amendment to the Protocol of the European Convention on Transfrontier Television to enable it to enter into force on 1 October 2000. [110081]

  Janet Anderson
  The Protocol amending the European Convention on Transfrontier Television will enter into force on 1 October 2000, provided that no State Party to the Convention notifies the Secretary General of the Council of Europe of an objection to its entry into force. The United Kingdom has no plans to make such an objection.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will exempt from being classified as excessive council tax rises the consequences of complying with the proposals of the Secretary of State for Education and Employment for passporting the increase in education standard spending assessments to education budgets. [110414]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Secretary of State will not be deciding whether to determine any principles to identify excessive budgets until all local authorities have set their budgets for 2000–01.
  549W
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his policy is on hypothecating standard spending assessments. [110413]

  Ms Armstrong
  Standard Spending Assessments are a component of the calculation of Revenue Support Grant, which is unhypothecated.

  Air Quality Strategy
  Mr. Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what resources he has made available to local authorities to enable them to meet the targets set out in the Air Quality Strategy. [108335]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Since 1997, the Government have provided additional resources each year via the local government finance settlement to enable authorities to carry out their air quality management duties. We have also provided supplementary credit approvals to the value of £12 million over the same period to allow for capital expenditure on air quality monitoring equipment. We have issued guidance and established helpdesks to help with any technical difficulties. Where road transport is the major source of local air pollution, we have encouraged authorities to use their local transport plans where appropriate to bid for additional resources to tackle the problem.

  Eurostar
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney) of 19 January 2000,Official Report, column 450W, when the consultant's report on Eurostar services to the North was completed and submitted to Ministers; and when he plans to make a statement on the report. [109296]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 9 February 2000]: The finalised report was completed and submitted to Ministers in January. An announcement of its publication will be made to the House shortly.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what criteria he uses to assess whether potential members of regional development agency boards have expertise in rural matters. [109808]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Candidates are assessed against a range of criteria, which includes demonstrating a detailed understanding of rural and environmental issues and/or a track record of success in the rural economy.

  The specific knowledge and expertise sought has varied from region to region and has included experience and knowledge of agriculture and land use industries, experience of social and economic issues affecting rural areas, experience of small and medium businesses in the rural environment and knowledge of issues such as CAP reform. The relative importance of these elements has depended on the balance of skills and expertise available from other potential board members.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list those non-departmental public bodies responsible to his Department which hold their(a) board and (b) working meetings in public; if he will set out the reasons for the remaining meetings being held in private; and if he will arrange to place in the Library the minutes of, and papers presented at, open board meetings of NDPBs responsible to his Department. [105077]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Of the executive NDPBs sponsored by DETR, only the eight Regional Development Agencies are statutorily required to hold an annual board meeting in public, following the publication of their annual reports. However, the following bodies do hold at least one annual open board meeting:

  Docklands Light Railway;

  Countryside Agency;

  English Nature;

  English Partnerships;

  Environment Agency;

  Health & Safety Commission and Executive;

  Housing Action Trusts (all five bodies);

  Local Government Commission for England;

  London Regional Passengers Committee; and

  National Forest Company.

  Other NDPBs, including the Housing Corporation and the Traffic Director for London, hold meetings for stakeholders as and when necessary, and the Environment Agency's regional advisory committees hold their meetings in public. NDPB meetings are held in private for good reason: commercial confidentiality; personal confidentiality; legal matters; and operational reasons.

  Many of DETR's executive NDPBs publish the minutes of board meetings and, in some cases, papers on the internet or make them available in paper form or do both. For this reason, and because of the volume of paper involved, I do not propose to ask bodies to place minutes of, and papers for, open board meetings in the Library.

  Biosafety Protocol
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what are the Government's objectives in the forthcoming negotiations on the Biosafety Protocol in Montreal; and if he will make a statement. [105574]

  Mr. Meacher
  [holding answer 19 January 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to my answer of 9 February 2000, Official Report, columns 159–60W.

  Genetically Modified Organisms
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the European Commission amendments to Directive 90/220 (Deliberate Release of Genetically Modified Organisms). [108091]

  Mr. Meacher
  The European Commission's amendments to Directive 90/220/EEC that have been incorporated in the Council's Common Position reflect the political agreement that was reached at the June 1999 Environment Council. The amendments include stricter provisions for environmental risk assessment and
  551W
  monitoring, the time limitation of consents, a tough new labelling regime and the identification and phasing out of antibiotic marker genes where they pose a risk to human health and the environment.

  Homelessness
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what is his policy on the provision of accommodation for homeless young single people who do not have family support. [110139]

  Mr. Mullin
  Local authorities currently have a duty under the Housing Act 1996 to accommodate unintentionally homeless people in priority need, which includes those who are vulnerable.

  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions' revised Code of Guidance on the Allocation of Accommodation and Homelessness, due to be published later in the year, will recommend that authorities treat 16 and 17-year-olds who have no back-up support as vulnerable, because of their age and circumstances, and therefore in priority need.

  The revised Code of Guidance will recommend that authorities develop strategies for co-ordinated working between agencies, including the value of exploring joint assessments at an early stage for those with multiple needs. The Guidance will also explicitly refer to the need for this approach when assessing homelessness applications from vulnerable people and when dealing with the needs of young people between the ages of 16–18. The forthcoming Housing Green Paper is likely to include proposals for reform of the homelessness legislation to provide further protection for unintentionally homeless people in priority need.

  Sustainable Waste Management
  Mr. Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what funding he has made available to local authorities for recycling, composting and other sustainable waste management initiatives for each financial year since the introduction of the landfill tax. [110030]

  Mr. Mullin
  There has been no specific funding for such initiatives by authorities, but schemes for new waste management facilities can be eligible for funding under the PFI. To date, 7 such schemes have been endorsed and will receive a total of £316.7 million of PFI credits.

  As we said in the draft National Waste Strategy, "A way With Waste", we recognise that the move to more integrated, sustainable waste management could incur costs to local authorities. We are therefore considering options for providing more resources to local authority waste management as part of the current Spending Review.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109934]
  552W
  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department purchased from Remploy office desking and pedestals during the period 1 January 1997 to 31 October 1997 after which the contract with the Department of Transport expired.

  The value of this furniture was £39,561 and was purchased by the Central Services Unit of the Department of Transport and the Vehicle Inspectorate Executive Agency (VIEA).

  Rent Assessment Panels
  Mr. Lepper
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the organisations which have been invited to respond to the consultation paper, entitled "Rent Assessment Panels: Financial Management and Policy Review". [109927]

  Mr. Mullin
  My Department invited the following organisations to respond to the consultation paper published on 18 November 1999:

  All Party Parliamentary Group for Leasehold Reform and Commonhold

  Association of Regulated Tenants' Associations

  Association of Residential Letting Agents

  Association of Residential Managing Agents

  Association of Retirement Housing Managers

  The Bar Council

  British Property Federation

  Camden Federation of Private Tenants

  Campaign for Fairer Fair Rents

  Coalition for the Abolition of Residential Leasehold

  Council on Tribunals

  DETR Trade Union Side

  The Enfranchisement League

  Federation of Independent Advice Centres

  Flat Owners Self-Help Network

  Kensington and Chelsea Staying Put

  The Law Society

  Leasehold Advisory Service

  Leasehold Enfranchisement Association

  Leasehold Enfranchisement Limited

  Lord Chancellor's Department

  National Assembly for Wales

  National Association of Citizens' Advice Bureaux

  National Association of Estate Agents

  National Consumer Council

  National Federation of Residential Landlords

  Rent Assessment Panels in England and Wales

  Rent Service Agency

  Residential Landlords' Association

  Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors

  Scottish Executive

  Shelter

  Small Landlords' Association.

  553W
  My Department also invited comments from the following organisations who requested a copy of the consultation paper:

  Advice Information and Mediation Service for Private Retirement Housing

  Association of London Government

  Brent Private Tenants' Rights Group

  Brighton, Hove and District Leaseholders' Association

  Bromford Housing Group

  Independent Housing Ombudsman

  Liverpool Federation of Council Tenants and Residents' Associations

  Local Government Association

  Private Tenants' Rights Project

  South East Landlords' Association Group.

  RAF Base, Little Rissington
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in relation to the Planning Inspector's report on the application for change of use for the hangars at the former RAF base at Little Rissington, Gloucestershire, when(a) the inspector's hearing was concluded, (b) the inspector submitted her report to Ministers and (c) the Minister made a decision. [110227]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The public inquiry concluded on 7 January 1999 and the Government Office for the South West (on behalf of the Secretary of State) received the Inspector's report on 2 August 1999. The decision in this case has been delayed in large part to the complexity of the issues and the changing status of the development plan. The case will be ready to submit to the Secretary of State in the very near future.

DEFENCE

  Strategic Defence Review
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which programmes set out in the Strategic Defence Review have been(a) cut, (b) delayed and (c) cancelled as a result of the costs incurred by the Kosovo deployment. [108743]

  Mr. Hoon
  The costs of the Kosovo deployment have had no impact on programmes set out in the SDR. However, the Kosovo deployment has meant that we have not yet been able to implement as much of the SDR as we would have liked at this stage. Some force elements, particularly those in the Army's Formation Readiness cycle, whose training has been disrupted by the deployment to Kosovo, will not be at full readiness levels as soon as planned.

  Tracer/FSCS System
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he last discussed the Tracer/FSCS system with his United States counterpart; and what conclusions were reached. [109859]

  Dr. Moonie
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has not had any specific discussions about Tracer with his US counterpart.

  Eurofighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions his Department has had with the Norwegian Government about the possible purchase of the Eurofighter; and if he will make a statement. [109799]

  Dr. Moonie
  Discussions with the Norwegian Government are continuing and cover various aspects of governmental support, such as training, to assist in this important marketing campaign. Ministers of the Eurofighter nations have agreed to accept Norway as a member of the NATO Eurofighter and Tornado Management Agency should she choose to buy Eurofighter.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what impact the production of the Meteor Missile in the United Kingdom will have on the missile selection process for the Eurofighter; and if he will make a statement. [109523]

  Dr. Moonie
  We are currently evaluating the bids we have received from two companies, Matra BAe Dynamics and Raytheon Systems Ltd., to meet our requirement for a Beyond Visual Range Air-to-Air Missile for Eurofighter. Our assessment will take into account the industrial issues associated with each bid together with a wide range of other factors including missile performance, cost, technical risk and overall value for money.

  Cruise Missiles (Kosovo)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the Cruise missiles launched from UK submarines during the Kosovo conflict. [109837]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles (TLAM) fired from HMS Splendid made a highly effective contribution to the NATO air campaign in Kosovo. They provided a major step forward in UK capability, enabling precision attacks at long range against selected targets. Tomahawks were particularly valuable during periods of poor weather when fewer manned aircraft were able to operate.

  Dervish Anti-personnel Land Mines
  Mrs. Ray Michie
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans he has to meet representatives from Edinburgh University to discuss the funding of the Dervish anti-personnel land mines clearance project. [109586]

  Dr. Moonie
  None.

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what archive files relating to Nancekuke are restricted for publication by the 30-year-rule; and if he will publish them early. [109947]

  Dr. Moonie
  It is not possible to identify the holding of all archived files relating to defence activities at Nancekuke without incurring disproportionate cost. All department records are reviewed under well established procedures and those selected for permanent preservation are released in accordance with the provisions of the Public Records Acts, 1958 and 1967.

  European Council (Helsinki)
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what changes in military structures are required in order to implement the common foreign and security policies agreed at the Helsinki European Council. [109956]

  Mr. Hoon
  At the Helsinki European Council, EU member states agreed:

  (a) to establish the new structures necessary for the EU to decide and, where NATO as a whole is not engaged, act in response to crises. These bodies will include a Military Committee and a Military Staff; and

  (b) to set up, from March 2000, the interim arrangements required for the EU to develop its military crisis management procedures, including an interim body of military representatives of member states' Chiefs of Defence.

  Defence Diversification Agency
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is the budget for the Defence Diversification Agency for the financial year 1999–2000. [110317]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Defence Diversification Agency (DDA) was launched in 1999 with a notional budget of £2 million per annum for its first three years. In the Agency's start-up year (financial year 1999–2000) the forecast budget was set at £1.5 million to take account of the planned ramp up in its operations. The forecast actual spend against this budget is projected to be around £1.1 million.

  Cluster Bombs
  Mr. Livsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if cluster bombs available for use by the armed services(a) at present and (b) within the last three years contain depleted uranium. [110223]

  Mr. Spellar
  No cluster bombs available for use by UK Armed Forces now or at any time during the last three years have contained depleted uranium.

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110277]

  Dr. Moonie
  During 1999, the average cost to my Department of distributing a media release centrally was approximately £78.50.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110264]

  Dr. Moonie
  The information is not available in the requested format. However, MOD's forecast expenditure for 1999–2000 on PR, marketing and business support services (together with expenditure by the Chief of Public Relations but not including the salaries of staff or associated costs) totals £4.849 million. Recruitment costs are not included.

  The corresponding figure for 2000–01 is £3.750 million.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if he will ensure that paper and timber products 556W
  purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source; [110158]

  (2) what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110157]

  Dr. Moonie
  In line with the recommendations of a recent Government-wide review, it is my Department's policy to procure timber and timber products only from sustainable sources and, in the case of tropical hardwood, to require independent verification of those sources. The scheme operated by the Forest Stewardship council is one of a number of available verification schemes mentioned in the DETR's Green Guide for Buyers. Where practicable, the use of reclaimed timber or timber products is also considered. Guidance on the use of paper is set out in the Ministry of Defence's Environmental Manual (JSP 418) and will be reviewed as part of the implementation of the Department's corporate Environmental Management System. A copy of JSP 418 has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Departmental Housing
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his Department's housing repair programme. [105564]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The Ministry of Defence plans cyclical maintenance and responds to requests for repairs through works services contracts. In Great Britain those works are managed by the Defence Housing Executive (DHE) who have a total repair and maintenance budget of £105.361 million in the current Financial Year. An additional £7.650 million is budgeted for carpets and curtains. Together these support the stock of some 64,000 houses. DHE have strict performance targets for meeting repair requests and these are being upheld.

  Overseas and in Northern Ireland repairs and maintenance are actioned through the individual Service establishment's overall repairs and maintenance budget. This covers all Service buildings and office accommodation as well as housing and it is not possible to identify precisely the expenditure for housing alone.

  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what funding his Department has allocated for each of the next three years for the renovation of service housing. [105563]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: The funding allocated for the next three years for the renovation of the married quarters estate (the upgrade programme) in Great Britain is as follows:

  Financial year

  £ million

  2000–01

  79.7

  2001–02

  78.8

  2002–03

  69.5

  There is no separate programme for the renovation of Service housing overseas which is undertaken with general estate maintenance.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110278]

  Mr. Byers
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 9 February 2000,Official Report, column 208W.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110265]

  Mr. Byers
  Most of the Department's publicity budgets, and the details of expenditure on advertising, are not held centrally. Also, in most cases a budget for advertising is not identified separately from other types of publicity or programme spend. The information requested could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Companies House
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the quinquennial review of Companies House will take place; and what the terms of reference for the review will be. [110934]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  I am today launching the Quinquennial Review of Companies House.

  Agencies and non-Departmental Public Bodies (NDPBs) are at the heart of our programme to modernise government. The Government are committed to achieving better public services that are of higher quality and are more responsive to the needs of the people who use them. Regular Agency and NDPB reviews are an important element in ensuring that we have in place the right structures to deliver the Government's agenda effectively and to provide a strong focus on improving future performance.

  The terms of reference for the Review of Companies House are:
  To consider and to make recommendations regarding:
  First, the organisational status which would be most appropriate for the operation and policy of Companies House in the future, taking into account its contribution to the objectives of the Department and of the Government as a whole, including the Modernising Government agenda, developments in the national and international legislative, regulatory and commercial environment; and
  Second, whether any changes should be made to the way in which Companies House operates, including its aims and objectives, targets and financial controls; the scope of the activities undertaken; and whether its activities could be done more effectively.
  In carrying out both stages of the review, the views of customers, staff and their trade unions, consumers and other interested parties will be fully taken into account.
  The review is to be undertaken in accordance with the latest Cabinet Office guidance, published on 31 January 2000.

  The Review will be carried out by officials in the Department of Trade and Industry, with specialist advice as appropriate. The work of the Review Team will be overseen by a Steering Group chaired by the Director General of Competition and Markets and including an
  558W
  independent member. The aim will be to complete the review within about six months, as recommended in the Cabinet Office guidance.

  As indicated in the terms of reference, the Review Team is seeking the views of interested parties. A questionnaire is available from:

  Companies House Review Team

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Bay 104

  151 Buckingham Palace Road

  London SW1W 9SS

  tel: 020 7215 1548

  email: cca.comments@lond02.dti.gov.uk

  Comments should be sent to the same address by 17 March 2000.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many bilateral meetings were held between his Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109903]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those previously planned meetings and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109905]

  Mr. Caborn
  The 'Britain Now' campaign, which was to involve a series of commercial and cultural events and was due to be held in Austria in May 2000, has been postponed. It may be rescheduled when the political climate is right and when commercial interests in the events themselves are more secure.

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if all food served at his Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109774]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Only caterers who meet the statutory requirements of food safety legislation are used as suppliers to the Department. They are audited for compliance before being used for the first time, and then at least annually.

  EU Structural Funds
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if money from a private company, acting in the capacity of a port authority, is eligible as matched funding for European Objective 2 funding. [110138]

  Mr. Caborn
  It is perfectly acceptable for projects supported by the structural funds to be part-funded by the private sector. The Government encourage programme partnerships to provide for flexibility in their programmes between private and public funding. The amounts of public and private funding required for programmes are set out in the financial tables in each Single Programming Document which must be agreed with the European Commission.

  Cash Machines (Surcharges)
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will use his powers under the Prices Act 1974 to regulate the charging of cash machine customers; and if he will make a statement. [109484]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: I believe that any charges for cash machines should be clearly displayed before the transaction proceeds. I am aware that the banking industry is currently considering this in the context of the revision to the Banking Code and I hope that a voluntary agreement ensuring transparency will be achieved. Nevertheless, if this is not, I will use my powers in section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 to require the industry to display charges clearly.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what powers he has to regulate the charging of cash machine customers. [109483]

  Dr. Howells
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Under section 4 of the Prices Act 1974 the Secretary of State may by order require that charges for services such as the use of cash machines are indicated.

  From 1 March the Director General of Fair Trading will have the power to examine such matters under the Competition Act 1998.

  General Pinochet
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what advice he has received from the Trade Attaché of the British Embassy in Chile concerning the trade effects of the arrest of General Pinochet. [110114]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The Commercial Section within our Embassy in Santiago provides regular advice on trade-related opportunities and developments. British companies remain active in Chile, although trade over the past year has been affected by the impact of the Asia crisis on the sub-region, including Chile, rather than by the detention of Senator Pinochet.

  Export Credits Guarantee Department
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the unrecovered loans issued by the Export Credits Guarantee Department over the last 15 years which are attributed to defence-related contracts, broken down by(a) country, (b) financial amount and (c) equipment. [108740]

  Mr. Caborn
  From information readily available, the value claims paid by ECGD in respect of defence-related contracts under guarantees issued in the last 15 years and which remain outstanding for recovery is as follows:

  £million

  Country

  Value of claims outstanding

  Algeria

  98

  Egypt

  46

  Indonesia

  131

  Jordan

  253

  Kenya

  16

  The equipment supplied under these contracts includes aircraft, artillery, naval vessels, vehicles, communications and ancillary equipment.
  560W
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the losses attributable to defence-related business with the ECGD broken down by(a) country, (b) goods and (c) financial amounts concerned for each year from 1997 to 1999. [108766]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: No business for which ECGD has issued cover in the period 1997 to 1999 has given rise to losses.

  However ECGD has recognised losses in this period in respect of business which was the subject of guarantees issued prior to 1997. In the case of defence-related business the losses are as follows:

  £ million

  Market

  Amount written off

  Burkina Faso

  0.6

  Egypt

  0.7

  Tanzania

  0.1

  Details of the goods are not readily available.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Traffic Accidents
  Mr. Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people have been killed or seriously injured in road traffic accidents in Northern Ireland since 1988. [110318]

  Mr. Ingram
  The following table shows the number of fatalities and serious injuries in road traffic accidents in northern Ireland since 1988:

  Year

  Fatalities

  Serious injuries

  1988

  178

  1,969

  1989

  181

  2,014

  1990

  185

  1,993

  1991

  185

  1,648

  1992

  150

  1,841

  1993

  143

  1,725

  1994

  157

  1,648

  1995

  144

  1,532

  1996

  142

  1,599

  1997

  144

  1,548

  1998

  160

  1,538

  1999

  141

  1—

  1 Not yet available

  Armed Robbery
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many armed robberies there have been in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement. [110052]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: There have been 729 armed robberies in Northern Ireland during the period from 10 April 1998 to 10 February 2000.
  561W
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate the number of people who have been held at gunpoint in armed robberies in Northern Ireland since the Good Friday Agreement. [110316]

  Mr. Ingram
  The number of persons held at gunpoint during the 729 armed robberies recorded since the signing of the Good Friday Agreement could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

SCOTLAND

  Immigration and Asylum Act 1999
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding published in October 1999, he has attended a joint ministerial committee to discuss matters relating to the implementation of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999; and if he will make a statement. [109226]

  Dr. Reid
  The implementation of this Act in Scotland has been the subject of regular contact between the Home Office and the relevant bodies in Scotland. UK Government Ministers are in frequent contact with Scottish Ministers on a wide range of matters. This issue has not been the subject of a meeting of the Joint Ministerial Committee.

  Bilateral Concordats
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in relation to the Memorandum of Understanding published in October 1999, he will list the bilateral concordats between the Scottish Executive and UK Government Departments; and if he will make a statement. [109227]

  Dr. Reid
  The following bilateral concordats between UK Government Departments and the Scottish Executive have been published:

  1. Cabinet Office

  2. Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

  3. Department for Education and Employment

  4. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (main concordat)

  (a) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (subject specific concordat on Fisheries)

  (b) Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (subject specific concordat on State Veterinary Services and Animal Disease Compensation)

  5. Office for National Statistics/General Register Office for Scotland

  6. Department of Trade and Industry

  7. HM Treasury and Department of Trade and Industry (subject to specific concordat on public procurement and related international obligations)

  8. Health and Safety Executive

  9. Department of Culture, Media and Sport

  10. Ministry of Defence

  11. Lord Chancellor's Department

  12. European Structural Funds

  13. HM Treasury

  14. Department of Health

  15. Home Office

  16. Department of Social Security.

  562W
  The bilateral concordats are administrative, not legally binding, agreements between UK Government Departments and the Scottish Executive, setting out their working relationships.

PRIME MINISTER

  Austria
  Dr. Julian Lewis
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy on the inclusion of the Freedom Party in the Government of Austria. [108949]

  The Prime Minister
  We made clear our concern at the inclusion of the Freedom Party in the Austrian Government. We have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government has committed itself to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, but we will be judging it by its future actions.

  NHS Beds (Oxfordshire)
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Prime Minister what is his policy on providing NHS beds to patients in Oxfordshire. [108951]

  The Prime Minister
  It is the responsibility of individual health authorities to determine the most appropriate balance of health services locally, including the range and number of beds available to the local community.

  The hon. Member will be aware that the report of the Government's National Beds Inquiry was published for consultation last week. The facts revealed by the report support our plans to build a new bridge of NHS care for older people between hospital and home and will support the first national strategy for providing NHS beds in 30 years.

  The conclusions of the report underline the need for us to consider a variety of forms of care, from acute to community provision, depending on the circumstances. Some services will be provided in a large hospital, some in community hospitals and some will be via improved care services in the home.

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what account Her Majesty's Government have taken of the representations of(a) Denis Halliday, (b) Hans von Sponeck and (c) other senior officials of UN Agencies in relation to UN sanctions in relation to child nutrition and mortality in Iraq. [108953]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government are very concerned about reports of child morality rates and malnutrition in Iraq. We continue to support efforts to target the humanitarian effort there towards the most vulnerable.

  Meanwhile, UN Security Council Resolution 1284, which was drafted and piloted through the Council by the UK, includes a raft of measures providing for an increased and improved "oil for food" programme. It also calls on

  563W
  the Government of Iraq to prioritise its spending under "oil for food" more effectively and to address the needs of vulnerable groups.

  If the Iraqi Government had chosen to prioritise properly the humanitarian assistance which has been made available since the start of "oil for food" in 1996, the suffering of the Iraqi people would have been hugely reduced.

  Engagements
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 February. [108947]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  Sir Peter Tapsell
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 February. [109970]

  The Prime Minister
  This morning I had meetings with Ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House I will have further such meetings later today.

  UN Agencies (Representations)
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Prime Minister what account the Government have taken of the representations of(a) Denis Halliday, (b) Hans von Sponeck and (c) other senior officials of UN agencies in relation to (i) aggravated water shortage in Turkey and (ii) US and UK bombing and the effect on child mortality in Iraq. [108790]

  The Prime Minister
  We are not aware of any representations by UN officials regarding "aggravated water shortage in Turkey".

  All actions by UK and US forces in the No Fly Zones are in response to Iraqi threats and are made in self-defence, as is their right under international law. Our forces make every effort to avoid civilian casualties. Iraqi claims to the contrary should be treated with caution. The Government of Iraq has, for example, previously blamed coalition aircraft for civilian casualties on days when no aircraft were patrolling the No Fly Zones.

  Local Government Elections
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of the voting system for local government, with particular reference to proportional representation. [110334]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: We have consistently made clear that we do not propose to change the local government voting system, other than the introduction of the Supplementary Vote system for the election of directly elected mayors. The Local Government Bill now in the House of Lords makes provision for these mayors.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is her Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–00 and (b) 2000–01. [110252]

  Mr. Foulkes
  DFID does not have a specific advertising budget. However, paid advertising in relation to recruitment currently costs around £1 million annually.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what was the average cost of issuing a media release from her Department in 1999. [110266]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our Department issued 89 media releases in 1999 at a total cost of £10,350. The average cost for issuing a press release was £116.29.

  East Timor
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list the projects and their costs in the reconstruction programme for East Timor. [108904]

  Clare Short
  At a multi-donor meeting on East Timor in Tokyo in December last year, the UK worked successfully for an international collaborative approach to East Timor. The UN Transitional Administration (UNTAET) and East Timorese representatives will set priorities for reconstruction and the transition to independence; the World Bank and Asian Development Bank will co-ordinate detailed analysis of needs; and donors will operate in this framework working jointly wherever possible. Often a sector-based, programmatic approach will be followed rather than one based on a plethora of small projects.

  Donors pledged a total of $522 million for East Timor at the Tokyo meeting. The UK will provide £13 million over three years, the bulk of it channelled through Trust Funds established by the World Bank and the UN. This is in addition to £5.5 million which we made available in the immediate aftermath of the crisis in East Timor which has supported the humanitarian work of a number of international organisations and NGOs, and has helped restore the power supply in Dili.

  Sri Lanka
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent assessment she has made of the humanitarian situation in north and east Sri Lanka. [109517]

  Clare Short
  The humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka remains difficult as a result of the ongoing conflict. Further displacements occur each time the conflict escalates. Officials from my Department continue to monitor the situation closely. We fund a number of agencies (including Oxfam, Save the Children Fund, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees and the United Nations Children's Fund) who have well-established programmes providing relief and rehabilitation for those displaced by the conflict.

  External Consultants
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the(a) number and (b) value of contracts let by her Department since May 1997 to external consultants and advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes. [109300]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Since May 1997, our Departments has not used external consultants or advisers for the management of competitive tendering processes.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for the financial year 1998–99 the number and total value of contracts let by her Department with external consultants and advisers that have(a) been put out to competitive tender, (b) not been put out to competitive tender and (c) been let on a non-commercial basis, stating in each case the names of the individuals or organisations that have carried out the work. [109067]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 8 February 2000]: I refer the hon. Member to the reply my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development gave him on 24 November 1999, Official Report, column 132W. Our Department's spend on external consultants and advisers in 1998–99 was £1.83 million. Ten contracts with a value of £926,154 were awarded after competitions. The remaining 24 contracts, with a value of £903,846, were awarded without competition. There were no contracts awarded on a non-commercial basis.

  Locally Employed Staff (Wages)
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the salary scale for her Department's locally employed staff in(a) Bangkok, (b) Bridgetown, (c) Delhi and (d) Pretoria. [106327]

  Mr. Foulkes
  [holding answer 24 January 2000]: The information is as follows:

  Grade

  Minimum

  Maximum

  (a) Bangkok

  LEI

  Baht

  575,340

  961,620

  LEII

  Baht

  414,660

  728,940

  LEIII

  Baht

  303,936

  564,036

  LEIV

  Baht

  193,224

  405,624

  (b) Bridgetown

  A2

  Barbados $

  95,306

  137,608

  B1

  Barbados $

  64,217

  92,993

  B2

  Barbados $

  44,497

  70,960

  C1

  Barbados $

  27,365

  49,515

  C2

  Barbados $

  22,111

  31,089

  LEVa

  Barbados $

  17,603

  27,326

  LEVb

  Barbados $

  15,447

  23,601

  (c) Delhi

  A3

  Rupees

  540,000

  1,080,000

  B1

  Rupees

  405,000

  702,000

  B2

  Rupees

  243,000

  432,000

  C1

  Rupees

  162,000

  297,000

  C2

  Rupees

  108,000

  189,000

  D

  Rupees

  86,400

  145,800

  (d) Pretoria

  B1

  Rand

  110,460

  171,360

  B2

  Rand

  72,590

  122,640

  C1

  Rand

  52,500

  81,445

  C2

  Rand

  34,500

  61,992

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many bilateral meetings were held between her Department and its Austrian counterpart in each of the last five years; and what was discussed at each meeting since May 1997. [109878]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The last bilateral meeting between UK and Austrian Development Ministers took place on 22 June 1998, when the Secretary of State for International Development met Mrs. Ferrero-Waldner, the Austrian Minister for Foreign Affairs. The work programme for the Austrian presidency of the European Union was discussed.

  The cost of researching all ministerial or official bilateral meetings in the last five years would be disproportionate.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list those previously planned meetings and their subject, between her Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109893]

  Mr. Foulkes
  No bilateral meetings between the Department for International Development and its Austrian counterpart had been planned to take place after the formation of the new Austrian Government.

  Colombia
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support her Department gives to human rights training programmes for the Colombian army. [109520]

  Clare Short
  Our Department does not give any support to human rights training programmes for the Colombian army.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development which British non-Governmental organisations in Colombia are supporting the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare's campaign to encourage peaceful resolution within the country. [109521]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Our Department has provided £149,905 for a Save the Children Fund project where they are working with five local partners in Colombia, including the Colombian Institute of Family Welfare. The project is meeting the immediate needs of children and adolescents while simultaneously addressing the longer-term rehabilitation aspects including conflict resolution, human rights and local capacity building.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  "Computers Within Reach"
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the impact of the Computers Within Reach scheme on low-income learners and families. [109984]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are making £15 million available for a pilot scheme—Computers Within Reach—to enable those who cannot afford new
  567W
  computers to acquire reconditioned computers for use in the home for the purpose of improving their employment prospects, for lifelong learning, or for their children's homework. The pilot scheme will run from April, and evaluation findings of the initiative will be made available in due course.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he has identified the pilot areas for the introduction of the Computers Within Reach scheme for low-income learners and families. [109982]

  Mr. Wills
  Proposals submitted in response to the Computers Within Reach prospectus published in autumn 1999 are currently being assessed. A final list of pilot projects and areas will be published later this spring.

  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment when the Computers Within Reach pilot projects for low-income learners and families will begin. [110312]

  Mr. Wills
  The Computers Within Reach scheme to pilot arrangements in England for enabling those who cannot afford new computers to acquire reconditioned or remaindered computers for use in the home will run from April 2000.

  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans the Government have to enable families on low incomes to gain access to home computers. [109184]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government have made £15 million available for a pilot scheme—Computers Within Reach—to enable those who cannot afford new computers to acquire reconditioned computers for use in the home for the purpose of improving their employment prospects, for lifelong learning, or for their children's homework. The pilot scheme will run from April.

  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will announce the areas for the pilot scheme for the Computers Within Reach Programme; and what criteria he uses in selecting these pilot areas. [108607]

  Mr. Wills
  The selection of pilot projects for the Computers Within Reach initiative is currently under way, and includes assessment of proposals submitted in response to the prospectus published in autumn 1999 and follow-up visits to shortlisted projects. All those satisfying an assessment of their technical and financial capability of fulfilling their commitment under the terms of the initiative will be accepted, and a list, with the geographical areas which the projects intend to cover, will be published later this spring.

  Specific grants supporting Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) initiatives launched since May 1997

  £ million

  DfEE specific grant

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Standards Fund

  School Effectiveness/Improvement

  —

  71.5

  125.5

  145.3

  Induction for Newly Qualified Teachers

  —

  2.4

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  SSAs
  Mr. Trickett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what is the education standard spending assessment per(a) primary and (b) secondary pupil in (i) England and Wales and (ii) Wakefield District; what the reasons are for the difference between the two figures; and if he will make a statement. [109805]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Information for England is given in the table for 2000–01. Education Standard Spending assessments do not cover Wales. The differences between the figures for England and those for Wakefield are a result of the authority's standard spending assessment which reflects social deprivation, area costs and demographic changes.

  £

  England

  Wakefield

  Primary SSA per pupil

  2,474

  2,314

  Secondary SSA per pupil

  3,175

  2,982

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much of Shropshire County Council's standard spending assessment increase for education will not be spent on education; and if he will make a statement. [110121]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  As part of our drive to raise standards in schools, the Government have announced an extra £1.1 billion for education standard spending assessments in 2000–01, of which Shropshire's share is £4.57 million. I understand that Shropshire County Council has not yet finalised its budget plans for the next financial year. We shall continue to urge them to use all of this additional funding for education.

  Departmental Initiatives (Grants)
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the initiatives launched by his Department since May 1997 under which specific grants are allocated, indicating in each case and for each financial year the funding provided by central Government. [109309]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 10 February 2000]: The following table lists the education initiatives launched since May 1997 under which specific grants are located, showing for each initiative the amount of funding allocated by the Government in each financial year. The figures for the Standards Fund do not include local education authorities' contributions. The 5.7 per cent. and 5.4 per cent. national increases in Education Standard Spending in 1999–2000 and 2000–01 respectively, include provision for authorities' contributions to the Standards Fund. The Government are also making £390 million available, over the three years from 1999–2000, to increase by 66 per cent. the number of free early years education places available for three-year-olds by 2002.
  569W

  Specific grants supporting Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) initiatives launched since May 1997

  £ million

  DfEE specific grant

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Baseline Assessment

  —

  4.7

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  National Curriculum Assessment

  —

  11.4

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  Effective use of National Curriculum Results

  —

  2.5

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  School Leadership

  —

  6.9

  21.0

  24.9

  Advanced Skills Teachers

  —

  0.6

  6.4

  9.5

  Local Recruitment Measures

  —

  —

  2.9

  Transferred to Teacher Training Agency

  Early Years Training and Development four-year-olds

  —

  4.5

  4.5

  4.5

  Early Years Training and Development three-year-olds

  —

  —

  1.5

  2.3

  Early Excellence Centres

  —

  1.9

  4.2

  2.1

  National Literacy Strategy—Primary

  —

  24.6

  24.4

  24.1

  National Numeracy Strategy—Primary

  —

  —

  24.8

  34.0

  Summer Literacy Schools and Key Stage 3 Literacy

  —

  3.7

  6.5

  Part of merged grant below

  Summer Numeracy Schools

  —

  0.3

  1.5

  Part of merged grant below

  National Numeracy Strategy—Key Stage 3

  —

  —

  0.5

  Part of merged grant below

  Summer Literacy and Numeracy Schools and Literacy and Numeracy at Key Stage 3

  —

  —

  —

  10.3

  Playing for Success

  —

  0.8

  1.5

  1.7

  Family Literacy

  —

  1.7

  2.5

  Part of Family Literacy and Numeracy

  Family Numeracy

  —

  —

  0.5

  Part of Family Literacy and Numeracy

  Family Literacy and Numeracy

  —

  —

  —

  3.5

  Local Authority Lifelong Learning Development Plans

  —

  —

  4.5

  9.0

  Qualifications

  —

  9.5

  9.5

  9.5

  Work Related Learning

  —

  2.0

  2.0

  Part of School Improvement Grant

  Special Educational Needs

  —

  9.0

  17.5

  27.5

  Social Inclusion: Pupil Support

  —

  10.2

  28.7

  70.0

  Drug Prevention

  —

  3.5

  3.7

  Part of Social Inclusion grant

  Youth service

  —

  1.0

  1.0

  Part of Social Inclusion grant

  National Grid for Learning

  —

  51.0

  52.2

  102.5

  School Security

  —

  15.0

  16.4

  16.5

  Beacon Schools

  —

  1.3

  5.5

  8.0

  Specialist Schools

  —

  19.3

  41.8

  To be allocated

  Ethnic Minority Pupil Achievement (EMAG)

  —

  —

  81.6

  95.0

  Education of Traveller and Displaced Persons

  —

  —

  8.9

  Part of EMAG

  Expanding central music services

  —

  —

  6.2

  10.3

  Protecting central music services

  —

  —

  28.9

  29.9

  Access Fund for pupils aged 16–19 in schools

  —

  0.0

  6.0

  9.0

  Year 6 Booster Classes

  —

  13.5

  48.0

  42.0

  Asset Management Plans

  —

  —

  7.0

  —

  Health Education Partnerships: Pilot projects

  —

  0.6

  2.0

  To be allocated

  Numeracy Consultants and Leading Maths Teachers

  —

  0.6

  —

  Part of the National Numeracy Strategy

  Portable CD Rom Systems for SEN Coordinators

  —

  4.0

  —

  —

  Books for Schools

  23.5

  73.5

  —

  —

  Childrens Parliament

  —

  0.04

  —

  —

  PCs for Chairs of Education

  —

  —

  0.3

  —

  Applications for Education Action Zones

  —

  —

  1.0

  —

  Small Education Action Zones

  —

  —

  0.1

  —

  Education Maintainence Allowances

  —

  —

  13.2

  31.9

  Excellence in Cities (EiC): Development

  —

  —

  0.8

  —

  Learning Mentors and Learning Support Units (EiC)

  —

  —

  16.9

  34.3

  Gifted and Talented Children (EiC)

  —

  —

  6.0

  18.0

  Best Practice Research Scholarships (EiC)

  —

  —

  0.2

  —

  City Learning Centres (EiC)

  —

  —

  1.8

  To be allocated

  Dom-x Project

  —

  —

  0.2

  To be allocated

  Study Support Summer School Pilots

  —

  —

  0.4

  —

  Support for Parent Governor Representatives

  —

  —

  0.2

  0.2

  Working Environment Fund

  —

  —

  20.0

  20.0

  Administrative Assistance in Small Schools

  —

  —

  20.0

  30.0

  PCs for Heads of Small Primary and Special Schools

  —

  —

  3.0

  —

  New National Curriculum

  —

  —

  —

  9.0

  Teenage Pregnancies

  —

  —

  —

  5.0

  Study Support

  —

  —

  —

  9.8

  Teaching Assistants

  —

  —

  —

  117.0

  Small School Support Fund

  —

  —

  —

  10.0

  Performance Management and Threshold Assessment Training

  —

  —

  —

  12.0

  Supported Early Retirement Scheme for Heads

  —

  —

  —

  5.6

  Adult: Pupil Ratios in Reception Classes

  —

  —

  —

  8.6

  Total Standards Fund

  23.5

  351.4

  683.6

  1,002.8

  Capital grants paid through the Standards Fund

  Removal of Outside Toilets

  —

  16.5

  —

  —

  Energy Management

  —

  13.2

  —

  —

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes (Capital)

  —

  45.4

  80.0

  60.0

  Seed Challenge Capital Grant

  —

  —

  —

  30.0

  Capital grants paid through the Standards Fund and other routes

  New Deal for Schools

  83.0

  257.0

  340.0

  To be allocated

  Formula Capital Grant

  —

  —

  —

  186.9

  570W 571W

  Specific grants supporting Department for Education and Employment (DfEE) initiatives launched since May 1997

  £ million

  DfEE specific grant

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  Total Capital

  83.0

  332.1

  420.0

  186.9

  Other specific grants

  Reduction of Infant Class Sizes (Revenue)

  —

  22.0

  80.0

  160.0

  Education Action Zones

  —

  11.9

  30.0

  59.0

  Nursery Education Grant

  637.0

  130.0

  125.0

  To be allocated

  Total other specific grants

  637.0

  163.9

  235.0

  219.0

  Notes:

  1. Grant for the Education of Traveller and Displaced Persons was in existence prior to May 1997 but became a standard Fund grant in 1999–2000.

  2. Ethnic Minority Pupil Achievement replaced the schools' education element of the Home Office Section 11 grant.

  3. Both grants for the reduction of class sizes will be paid through the Standards Fund mechanism from 1999–2000 but are covered by their own Regulations and are therefore listed outside the Standards Fund.

  4. The Books for Schools grant includes provision for grant maintained schools paid via the Funding Agency for Schools.

  5. In 1998–99 a large proportion of nursery education funding was channelled through the Revenue Support Grant.

  6. Nearly £1.5 million of credit approval has been allocated for the removal of outside toilets, in addition to the £16.5 million of grant allocated through the Standards Fund.

  7. Under the New Deal for Schools, grant that has not been paid through the Standards Fund has been paid direct to voluntary aided schools and to former grant-maintained schools (either direct or through the Funding Agency for Schools).

  8. Formula capital grant is paid to schools either through the Standards Fund or direct to Voluntary Aided schools.

  Funding
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the funding per pupil in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools for each local education authority in descending order in the last year for which figures are available; and what plans he has to tackle the disparity in funding between local education authorities. [110245]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: Set out in the table, in descending order, is the funding for LEA maintained primary (including pre-primary) and secondary schools, on a per pupil basis, for the financial year 1997–98, the latest year for which final figures are available.

  The Government announced in November 1998 a three-year review in partnership with local government to look for a way of distributing revenue support grant which is simpler, more stable, more robust and fairer than the present arrangements for SSAs.

  £

  Funding per pupil

  Pre-primary and primary

  London, City of

  3,946

  Isles of Scilly

  2,852

  Lambeth

  2,832

  Kensington and Chelsea

  2,649

  Tower Hamlets

  2,593

  Westminster, City of

  2,553

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2,535

  Hackney

  2,384

  Camden

  2,381

  Lewisham

  2,335

  Islington

  2,332

  Haringey

  2,314

  Southwark

  2,313

  Wandsworth

  2,210

  Harrow

  2,158

  Greenwich

  2,150

  Bradford

  2,122

  Waltham Forest

  2,117

  Hounslow

  2,062

  Merton

  2,054

  Brent

  2,018

  Ealing

  2,010

  572W

  £

  Funding per pupil

  Barking and Dagenham

  1,974

  Birmingham

  1,949

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,937

  Richmond upon Thames

  1,932

  Rutland

  1,922

  Croydon

  1,905

  Enfield

  1,894

  Sutton

  1,872

  Doncaster

  1,870

  Cumbria

  1,865

  Newham

  1,854

  Barnet

  1,846

  Sandwell

  1,837

  Southampton

  1,831

  Kingston upon Thames

  1,820

  Redbridge

  1,812

  Isle of Wight

  1,803

  Portsmouth

  1,802

  Suffolk

  1,789

  Coventry

  1,784

  Bristol, City of

  1,780

  Surrey

  1,776

  Bedfordshire

  1,770

  Wolverhampton

  1,758

  Hertfordshire

  1,754

  Bolton

  1,743

  Luton

  1,743

  Bromley

  1,741

  Havering

  1,741

  West Sussex

  1,736

  Hillingdon

  1,735

  Nottinghamshire

  1,732

  Leicester City

  1,731

  Essex

  1,721

  Norfolk

  1,713

  Cheshire

  1,711

  Knowsley

  1,709

  Bath and North East Somerset

  1,709

  Leeds

  1,694

  Kent

  1,694

  Somerset

  1,694

  Sheffield

  1,693

  Durham

  1,690

  North Somerset

  1,689

  Gateshead

  1,688

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  1,688

  Liverpool

  1,687

  573W

  £

  Funding per pupil

  Wiltshire

  1,687

  Lancashire

  1,684

  Lincolnshire

  1,684

  Hampshire

  1,683

  Rochdale

  1,680

  Shropshire

  1,679

  East Sussex

  1,675

  Cornwall

  1,670

  Warwickshire

  1,668

  Hereford and Worcester

  1,666

  Gloucestershire

  1,664

  Oldham

  1,662

  Derby City

  1,661

  Leicestershire

  1,661

  South Gloucestershire

  1,659

  North Lincolnshire

  1,658

  Kirklees

  1,656

  Calderdale

  1,647

  Sunderland

  1,645

  North Yorkshire

  1,645

  Manchester

  1,643

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  1,641

  Dorset

  1,641

  Walsall

  1,640

  North Tyneside

  1,639

  North East Lincolnshire

  1,635

  Buckinghamshire

  1,634

  Devon

  1,633

  Solihull

  1,623

  Redcar and Cleveland

  1,620

  York, City of

  1,614

  Milton Keynes

  1,614

  Berkshire

  1,614

  Oxfordshire

  1,614

  Northumberland

  1,611

  Tameside

  1,599

  Wirral

  1,596

  Stoke-on-Trent

  1,596

  Bexley

  1,595

  Trafford

  1,594

  St. Helens

  1,589

  Rotherham

  1,585

  Cambridgeshire

  1,585

  Sefton

  1,584

  Northamptonshire

  1,582

  Dudley

  1,578

  Derbyshire

  1,578

  Staffordshire

  1,575

  Swindon

  1,566

  Middlesbrough

  1,563

  Stockport

  1,559

  Barnsley

  1,553

  B"right"on and Hove

  1,552

  South Tyneside

  1,546

  Salford

  1,545

  Wakefield

  1,532

  Bournemouth

  1,521

  Wigan

  1,519

  Poole

  1,518

  Hartlepool

  1,490

  Bury

  1,455

  Stockton-on-Tees

  1,439

  Darlington

  1,432

  Average

  1,739

  Secondary

  Isles of Scilly

  5,077

  Brent

  3,799

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3,464

  574W

  £

  Funding per pupil

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,458

  Lambeth

  3,363

  Tower Hamlets

  3,206

  Camden

  3,154

  Haringey

  3,154

  Islington

  3,147

  Westminster, City of

  3,121

  Hackney

  3,050

  Lewisham

  3,043

  Southwark

  3,022

  Harrow

  2,858

  Newham

  2,804

  Waltham Forest

  2,773

  Hillingdon

  2,738

  Havering

  2,737

  Ealing

  2,723

  Croydon

  2,682

  Wandsworth

  2,680

  Greenwich

  2,642

  Barnet

  2,631

  Hounslow

  2,630

  Barking and Dagenham

  2,621

  Birmingham

  2,612

  Enfield

  2,607

  Redbridge

  2,599

  Derby City

  2,595

  Sutton

  2,578

  Richmond upon Thames

  2,542

  Essex

  2,540

  Bromley

  2,539

  Bristol, City of

  2,532

  Cumbria

  2,516

  Hertfordshire

  2,516

  Calderdale

  2,504

  Wolverhampton

  2,503

  Coventry

  2,497

  Manchester

  2,491

  Merton

  2,474

  Shropshire

  2,472

  Lincolnshire

  2,471

  Kingston upon Thames

  2,468

  Norfolk

  2,462

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  2,452

  Doncaster

  2,445

  South Gloucestershire

  2,438

  North Somerset

  2,433

  Sandwell

  2,423

  Southampton

  2,409

  Lancashire

  2,404

  Kent

  2,386

  Rochdale

  2,380

  West Sussex

  2,369

  Bexley

  2,366

  Middlesbrough

  2,364

  Nottinghamshire

  2,362

  Wirral

  2,358

  Leeds

  2,358

  East Sussex

  2,358

  B"right"on and Hove

  2,354

  Sefton

  2,352

  Bath and North East Somerset

  2,348

  York, City of

  2,348

  Bolton

  2,346

  North Yorkshire

  2,345

  Liverpool

  2,336

  Cornwall

  2,328

  Hampshire

  2,327

  Solihull

  2,322

  Berkshire

  2,321

  Surrey

  2,321

  575W

  £

  Funding per pupil

  Cheshire

  2,320

  Gateshead

  2,311

  Devon

  2,310

  Leicester City

  2,308

  Portsmouth

  2,307

  Stoke-on-Trent

  2,306

  Wigan

  2,305

  Knowsley

  2,304

  Oldham

  2,304

  Salford

  2,302

  Kingston Upon Hull, City of

  2,300

  Suffolk

  2,300

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  2,298

  Leicestershire

  2,297

  Buckinghamshire

  2,287

  Derbyshire

  2,287

  St. Helens

  2,278

  North Tyneside

  2,272

  North East Lincolnshire

  2,272

  Cambridgeshire

  2,270

  Wiltshire

  2,263

  Redcar and Cleveland

  2,262

  Warwickshire

  2,261

  Walsall

  2,252

  Bournemouth

  2,248

  Trafford

  2,244

  Kirklees

  2,243

  North Lincolnshire

  2,243

  Gloucestershire

  2,243

  Northamptonshire

  2,239

  Oxfordshire

  2,235

  Luton

  2,232

  Bedfordshire

  2,231

  Somerset

  2,222

  Barnsley

  2,218

  Sunderland

  2,210

  Durham

  2,206

  Isle of Wight

  2,204

  Hereford and Worcester

  2,203

  Dudley

  2,202

  Sheffield

  2,192

  Tameside

  2,176

  Milton Keynes

  2,174

  Swindon

  2,163

  Rotherham

  2,152

  Hartlepool

  2,151

  Bury

  2,139

  Stockport

  2,121

  Stockton-on-Tees

  2,119

  Dorset

  2,116

  Staffordshire

  2,115

  South Tyneside

  2,109

  Wakefield

  2,108

  Darlington

  2,083

  Northumberland

  2,035

  Poole

  1,794

  Bradford

  1,605

  London, City of

  1—

  Rutland

  1—

  Average

  2,359

  1 Not applicable

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what account he took of the speech by the "right" hon. Member for the Cities of London and Westminster of 3 February 2000,Official Report, columns 1299–1300, in writing to the Leader of Westminster City Council on 7 February. [110409]
  576W
  Ms Estelle Morris
  My "right" hon. Friend is aware of views expressed in the speech by the "right" hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) of 3 February 2000. He will not take account of the level of an authority's spend in comparison with its standard spending assessment in taking decisions on whether to release its share of the £50 million grant. It is vitally important that the increased funding we have made available for education reaches education budgets. We will therefore continue to urge local authorities to passport the increase in education spending assessments to education budgets. My "right" hon. Friend will take decisions on the release of the £50 million grant to support school budgets in due course.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, pursuant to his letter of 7 February to the Leader of Westminster City Council, if he will take account of the authority's cash increase in central support grant when deciding whether to release the council's share of the extra £50 million special grant available for education. [110411]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  It is for an authority to decide how it uses any increase in central support protection grant in setting its budget. My "right" hon. Friend will want to see prior confirmation that an authority has increased its education budget by the increase for 2000–01 in its education standard spending assessment before making a decision on the release of its share of the £50 million special grant.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what conditions will be attached to the additional special grant of £50 million for education next year; and what the reasons are for attaching these conditions. [110408]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My "right" hon. Friend will want to see prior confirmation that the whole of an authority's increase in its education standard spending assessment has been passed on to its education budget before he takes decisions on the release of that authority's share of the £50 million special grant. Local education authorities will be required to include their share of the £50 million special grant in their schools' delegated budgets. It is vital that the £1.1 billion increase in education standard spending for 2000–01 is not diverted to other services, but reaches local education authority budgets, and that the £50 million in extra grant is used to support school budgets.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will take into account the fact that an authority is already spending above its education standard spending assessment when distributing his Department's additional special grant of £50 million for education. [110412]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  My "right" hon. Friend will not take account of the level of an authority's spend in comparison with its standard spending assessment in taking decisions
  577W
  on whether to release its share of the £50 million special grant. What is important is whether an authority increases its education budget by the increase in its education SSA.

  Mr. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many local authorities have confirmed to his Department their intention to passport the whole of their education standard spending assessment increase to their education budget in the next financial year. [110407]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  To date 113 local authorities in England have confirmed their intention to passport the whole of their education standard spending assessment increase to their education budget.

  Skills Development Fund
  Mr. Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the budget for the Skills Development Fund for 1999–2000; how many applications were received for assistance from the Fund for 1999–2000 and how many were successful; and what was the total value of applications for assistance from the Skills Development Fund received for the 1999–2000 bidding round. [110100]

  Mr. Wicks
  In 1999–2000, a Skills Development Fund budget of £31.75 million was allocated to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) to enable them to support skills projects. RDAs have provided funding for over 100 SDF projects. The RDAs report that there was considerable interest in the Fund. Information is not held centrally on the number of bids received or their total value.

  Training and Enterprise Councils
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will permit TECs to commit funds to Objective 2 projects during the changeover period to learning and skills councils. [110136]

  Mr. Wicks
  The Government wish to maintain the level and quality of local projects with a learning and skills focus which are supported by European funding during the changeover to learning and skills councils. My Department is currently developing a framework for managing TECs' involvement in new projects, including European programmes, and will be issuing guidance shortly to TECs and Government Offices. Where it is necessary, transition arrangements will be made for managing any forward commitment, including transferring this to the learning and skills council if this is appropriate.

  Higher Education
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what data he has collated on the number of people participating in higher education, broken down by socio-economic group, in each of the last three years. [109980]

  Mr. Wicks
  Figures for the number of acceptances by social class are given in the table.
  578W

  Home domiciled accepted applicants to full-time and sandwich 1 undergraduate courses in the United Kingdom through the Universities and Colleges Admission System (UCAS) by social class 2 1997 to 1999

  Year of entry

  1997

  1998

  1999

  A Professional

  39,644

  38,510

  38,864

  B Intermediate

  117,360

  115,615

  115,667

  C1 Skilled non-manual

  44,804

  44,207

  44,474

  C2 Skilled manual

  37,333

  35,610

  36,286

  D Partly skilled

  23,507

  22,692

  23,097

  E Unskilled

  5,620

  5,329

  5,538

  Not known

  35,050

  36,257

  39,139

  Total

  303,318

  298,220

  303,065

  1 UCAS collect data on full-time and sandwich courses only, therefore no information on part-time acceptances is available.

  2 For students aged under 21, the social class is that of their parents, for those aged 21 and over the social class is that of the student.

  Northumberland Education Authority
  Mr. Beith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how much Northumberland Education Authority will receive from the £50 million funding he has announced for the post-16 curriculum; and if he will provide guidance on the amount which should be made available to each high school or college teaching the relevant age group. [109985]

  Mr. Wicks
  Education Standard Spending for 2000-01 takes into account the estimated recurrent costs—£35 million—of successfully implementing the forthcoming reforms to post-16 qualifications in LEA maintained schools in that year. There is no meaningful way in which the Department can put a precise figure on how much additional funding for implementing the reforms is included in the Northumberland Education Standard Spending Assessment. Nor would it be appropriate for the Department to offer guidance on the resources which should be made available to individual schools in order to implement the reforms. These decisions are, "right"ly, made locally, in the light of local needs and circumstances.

  Teachers' Pay
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if the proposed arrangements for performance-related pay for teachers in England and Wales will apply to British teachers in European schools. [109941]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The proposed performance threshold arrangements and other pay reforms will only have statutory force for those teachers working in England and Wales who are covered by the School Teachers' Pay and Conditions Document. This is not the position for British teachers in European schools.

  Literacy and Numeracy Standards
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list for each year from 1992 to date the percentage of 11-year-olds that met the expected(a) literacy and (b) numeracy standards in Shropshire; and if he will make a statement. [110131]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The information requested is shown in the following table.
  579W

  Percentage of pupils achieving Level 4 or above in KS2 English and maths tests

  Shropshire

  Telford and Wrekin

  Year

  English

  Maths

  English

  Maths

  1999

  73.7

  72.4

  67.5

  66.3

  1998

  69.1

  64.2

  59.7

  55.8

  1997

  59.1

  51.3

  n/a

  n/a

  1996

  55.4

  53.7

  n/a

  n/a

  Note:

  Primary Performance Tables were first published in 1996. Complete national KS2 test information was not available prior to that year. Telford and Wrekin local authority was established as a Unitary Council in April 1998 from within the boundaries of Shropshire local authority.

  Source:

  DfEE Performance Tables

  The national Literacy and Numeracy Targets for 2002 are that 80 and 75 per cent. of 11-year-olds should reach Level 4 and above in KS2 English and maths tests respectively.

  Oath of Allegiance
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many letters he has received since 1 May 1997 on(a) constituency matters and (b) other matters of Government policy from each of those Members of the House who have not taken the oath of allegiance. [108410]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Correspondence between MPs and Departments is treated in confidence unless the originating MP chooses to make such issues public.

  "Computers for Teachers"
  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how the supplying companies were chosen for the Computer for Teachers scheme. [108437]

  Mr. Wills
  The process of identifying suitable companies involved the DfEE issuing a prospectus, to which interested suppliers responded. Their proposals contained financial and historical information on their business, the specifications of computers being offered and a detailed plan of the ways in which the company would support prospective customers. Detailed checks were made on these responses, including checks on the financial strength and stability of the companies concerned. Final selection was made on the basis of advice provided by BECTa to the Tender Board assembled for the purpose. Their decisions and recommendations to the DfEE were arrived at in the light of the proposals received and the results of the checks carried out.

  Mr. Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what arrangements he has put in place to allow small local suppliers to take part in the Computers for Teachers scheme. [108438]

  Mr. Wills
  Following the announcement of 12 October, copies of the prospectus were issued on request to interested companies. Nothing in the prospectus precluded applications from small suppliers.

  Learning and Skills Councils
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if local authorities will have designated representation on the proposed national and local learning and skills councils. [109083]

  Mr. Wicks
  We have reiterated during the Lords Committee Stage of the Learning and Skills Bill that we would certainly expect national and local LSCs to include members who understand the needs of local communities through current local authority experience. But we also said it would be wrong to go further than that and specify a particular proportion of places for local authority representatives. It would be difficult then to ensure representation for all the other national partners and stakeholder organisations with an interest in post-16 learning.

  We also made it clear that Local authorities will be central partners in the new post-16 arrangements—not just in providing and securing learning opportunities in schools and through adult and community learning but also as organisations which are uniquely placed to provide vision and leadership for communities. The new arrangements will mean that local authorities have a greater influence over the whole range of post-16 provision since local LSCs will be required to consult local authorities on their plans and set out in them the post-16 learning provision which LEAs will secure.

  Disruptive Pupils
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what steps he is taking to ensure schools receive the support they need to deal with disruptive pupils. [110238]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The key to tackling poor behaviour is early intervention. My "right" hon. Friend issued guidance on pupil attendance, behaviour, exclusion and re-integration to Local Education Authorities and schools in July of last year. The School Inclusion: Pupil Support Standards Fund grant will provide £140 million to schools and Local Education Authorities in 2000–01 to help them tackle behaviour problems before they escalate. Nearly £100 million must be devolved to secondary schools. Additional resources are going to secondary schools in some city areas as part of the 'Excellence in Cities' initiative, which will include support for Learning Mentors and Learning Support Units to help combat disruption in the classroom. These measures will help meet the targets to reduce truancy and exclusions by one third by 2002.

  Internet
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the primary schools in Lancashire which(a) are and (b) are not connected to the internet via the Lancashire National Grid for Learning. [108808]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: As at March 1999, national connection figures stood at 93 per cent. of secondary schools and at least 62 per cent. of primary schools having internet connections.

  581W
  Information provided by Lancashire Local Education Authority indicates that as at October 1999, 313 primary schools had access to the internet. The 200 primary schools remaining are due to be connected to the internet by the end of July 2000. The Department does not hold information on whether or not these connections are through the Lancashire National Grid for Learning.

  Information Technology (Primary Schools)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to develop the provision of information technology within primary schools. [108518]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 7 February 2000]: The implementation of the National Grid for Learning will support investment of £657 million in information and communications technology in maintained schools in England in the period up to 2002. Primary schools were the focus for expenditure in the first phase of this programme (1998–99). This has led to unprecedented improvements in connectivity. Last year there was a four fold improvement in internet connections in primary schools to 62 per cent. We are making increased levels of funding available in the period 2000–02 to enable the remaining primary schools to become connected to the internet and the Grid. At the same time this will enable more primary schools to invest in networked ICT.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to extend the new statutory "right" to time off for parental leave to staff in his Department whose children were born before 15 December 1999. [108792]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department for Education and Employment will consider whether it is appropriate to extend the new statutory "right" for parental leave to staff whose children were born before 15 December 1999 as part of the 2000 pay round.

  Departmental Press Releases
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many press releases were issued by his Department in each year since 1995. [109305]

  Mr. Wills
  The number of press releases issued for each year from 1995 to 1999 by this Department are as follows:

  Year

  Number

  1995

  472

  1996

  443

  1997

  447

  1998

  598

  1999

  605

  A-level Points Scores
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) what recent research he has commissioned on the relationship between the size of school sixth forms and average A-level points scores; [109126]
  582W
  (2) what recent research he has commissioned on the relationship between local authorities' average GCSE and A-level points scores, their admissions policies at 11 plus and the structure of post-16 provision. [109127]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The Department has not recently commissioned any research of these types.

  Computers in Schools
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if all the computers being installed in schools under the Government's initiative for computers in schools are able to provide access to the internet. [105157]

  Mr. Wills
  The Government are making available over £700 million over the four years 1998–2002 for the networking and equipping of schools in the UK. The Government are committed to ensuring that all schools are connected to the internet by 2002, but it is for schools to decide their own pattern of ICT purchasing, and whether they make use of services and systems supporting internet connection from each computer, in the light of their own needs and development plans.

  The Department published last year the results of the latest annual survey of ICT in provision in schools. Subsequent surveys will indicate the growth in number of schools with internet connections.

  Percentage schools connected

  DfEE survey

  March 1996

  Primary

  5

  Secondary

  47

  Special

  8

  March 1998

  Primary

  17

  Secondary

  83

  Special

  31

  March 1999

  Primary

  62

  Secondary

  93

  Special

  60

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  Departmental Functions (Food)
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the President of the Council if all food served at her Department's official functions meets the standards of production required of domestic producers. [109780]

  Mrs. Beckett
  On any occasion when I host departmental functions where food is served, food is obtained from domestic producers who are subject to the necessary legal requirements.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Chechnya
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has held
  583W
  with representatives of the Russian Government about Russia's proposals for ending the war in Chechnya; and if he will make a statement. [110330]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: We have had frequent discussions with the Russian Government since the outbreak of hostilities in Chechnya, but have seen no specific Russian proposals for ending the war, other than through military means. We have consistently emphasised to them that their military offensive has an unacceptable human cost and will not solve the problem in the long-term. We have urged Russia to seek a political solution in Chechnya and to make use of the good offices of the OSCE in order to bring this about. My "right" hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will reiterate this message when he visits Moscow on 21–22 February.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Russian Government concerning the level of civilian casualties in the Chechen war. [110329]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: We have repeatedly made representations to the Russian Government about the war in Chechnya. We have stressed to them that the human cost of their military offensive is unacceptable and that they must pursue a political settlement. My "right" hon. Friend the Prime Minister raised our concerns with Mr. Putin on 20 December 1999. My "right" hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has also been in frequent touch with the Russian Foreign Minister about this, most recently on the telephone on 31 December 1999 and 11 January.

  My "right" hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expects to make further representations on Chechnya when he visits Moscow on 21–22 February.

  Intergovernmental Conference
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the nomination of his representative for the intergovernmental conference preparatory group. [107365]

  Mr. Vaz
  The UK's representative to the intergovernmental conference preparatory group will be Sir Stephen Wall, the UK's Permanent Representative to the European Union.

  Indonesia
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made to the(a) Indonesian and (b) Chinese Governments concerning treatment of ethnic Chinese inhabitants within Indonesia. [109677]

  Mr. Battle
  My "right" hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I raised our concerns about sectarian violence in Indonesia with President Wahid in London on 1 February. We have not made representations to the Chinese Government on this issue.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the religiously motivated violence in Maluku, Indonesia. [109522]
  584W
  Mr. Battle
  We remain deeply concerned about the violence and loss of life in Maluku. Religion is only one of a number of factors involved. My "right" hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary and I raised these concerns with President Wahid and his Foreign Minister when they were in London on 1 February. President Wahid reaffirmed his commitment to securing lasting peace between the two communities. We shall support him vigorously in his efforts and stand ready to help him in any way possible.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps have been taken to send a UN human "right"s rapporteur to Maluku, Indonesia. [109546]

  Mr. Battle
  My "right" hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary discussed the situation in Maluku with President Wahid in London on 1 February. President Wahid reaffirmed his commitment to find a fair and lasting solution through dialogue to the troubles in the province. The Joint Assessment Mission to Maluku of 22–27 January, by the Indonesian Government and international agencies including the United Nations, was an important first step in determining the best way forward.

  Austria (Bilateral Meetings)
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list those previously planned meetings, and their subject, between his Department and its Austrian counterpart which have been cancelled since the formation of the new Austrian Government. [109895]

  Mr. Vaz
  There were no previously planned meetings, and therefore none that have been cancelled.

  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what guidance he has given to the British Ambassador to Austria in respect of(a) official contacts and meetings with ministers of the new Government, (b) official contacts with officials of the new Government and (c) promoting Britain's interests in Austria. [109867]

  Mr. Vaz
  According to the measures of the 14 EU member states there are no restrictions on the contacts of the Ambassadors of the 14 in Vienna; contacts between officials also remain unrestricted. Her Majesty's Ambassador in Vienna will use his discretion in developing contacts with a new Government. He will continue to promote Britain's interests there.

  Mr. Winnick
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on Britain's relations with Austria. [109815]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: I have made clear the Government's deep concern and distaste at the inclusion in the Austrian Government of a far-"right" party which appeals to xenophobia. Together with our 13 other partners in the European Union we have implemented measures which will serve to limit the bilateral relationship between the UK and Austria. I have welcomed the fact that the new Austrian Government have committed themselves to abiding by the common obligations and values of EU membership, to combating all forms of discrimination, and to dealing constructively

  585W
  with the country's Nazi past. We will be watching them closely and judging them on whether they fulfil the commitments they have made.

  Israel
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of evidence presented to the European Commission concerning products processed in Israeli settlements in occupied territories which have been imported into the Community under the EC Trade Agreement with Israel in violation of that Agreement's Origin Rules Protocol; and if he will make representations to the Commission about acting on the evidence presented. [109539]

  Mr. Vaz
  Customs and Excise is participating in a European Commission initiative to establish the true origin of goods which have been exported to the United Kingdom and other member states under the provisions of the Interim Agreement on trade and trade-related matters between the European Community and the State of Israel. So far investigations have failed to substantiate the alleged non-compliance with the provisions of the Agreement. We will continue to assist the Commission in its investigations and to support the continuing dialogue between the Commission, the Israeli Government, and the Palestinian Authority on this issue.

  Sri Lanka
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his Commonwealth counterparts concerning Sri Lanka's membership of the Commonwealth. [109513]

  Mr. Hain
  None.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment his Department has made of the civil war in Sri Lanka. [109515]

  Mr. Hain
  We are concerned about the continuing ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka and believe a lasting solution can be reached only through a political settlement. We welcome the Leader of the Opposition's recent offer of support for the President's devolution package. We have made it clear that we stand ready to help in the resolution of the conflict if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has received concerning the Sri Lankan Government's press reporting of the civil war there. [109538]

  Mr. Hain
  Concerns have been expressed about military censorship in Sri Lanka. We believe it is important for the Sri Lankan Government to maintain their commitment to press freedom, although this needs to take account of the need for military security.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts concerning the civil war in Sri Lanka. [109514]

  Mr. Hain
  The ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka is discussed frequently in EU fora.
  586W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what steps he has taken to encourage a political settlement between the Sri Lankan Government and the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Ealam. [109516]

  Mr. Hain
  We take every opportunity at bilateral meetings to stress the need for a political settlement to end the ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka. We have made it clear that we stand ready to help if both sides ask us to play a role.

  Okinawa G8 Summit
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the dates of the preparatory meetings of officials for the Okinawa G8 Summit in July. [109529]

  Mr. Hain
  So far there have been two meetings of senior officials to prepare for the Okinawa Summit. G8 Heads' Representatives met on 23–24 January and Foreign Ministry officials met on 5–6 February. Between now and the Summit there will be further meetings of these and Finance Ministry officials to prepare the Summit agenda. In addition there are a number of expert level groups looking at different issues on the G8 agenda such as Nuclear Safety and Non-Proliferation. The Japanese Presidency of the G8 has not publicised the dates yet.

  Meetings of Education, Environment, Finance and Foreign Ministers have also been arranged in advance of the Summit (on 1–2 April, 7–9 April, 8 July and 12–13 July respectively).

  G7/8 2000 calendar

  Date

  January

  22

  Finance Ministers' Meeting (G7)

  Tokyo, Japan

  23–24

  Sherpa Meeting

  Kyoto, Japan

  February

  5–6

  Foreign Affairs' Sous-Sherpa Meeting

  Nara, Japan

  9

  Education Ministers' Preparatory Meeting

  Tokyo, Japan

  28–29

  Political Directors' Meeting

  Kyoto, Japan

  March

  4

  Finance Sous-Sherpa Meeting

  Kyoto, Japan

  11–12

  Foreign Affairs' Sous-Sherpa Meeting

  Karuizawa, Japan

  April

  1–2

  Education Ministers' Meeting

  Tokyo, Japan

  4–5

  Sherpa Meeting

  Ireland

  7–9

  G8 Environment Ministers' Meeting

  Japan

  15

  Finance Ministers' Meeting

  Washington DC

  May

  15

  Finance Sous-Sherpa Meeting

  Karuizawa, Japan

  15–16

  Sherpa Meeting

  Karuizawa, Japan

  27–28

  Political Directors' Meeting

  Miyazaki, Japan

  28–29

  Foreign Affairs' Sous-Sherpa Meeting

  Miyazaki, Japan

  June

  17

  Finance Sous-Sherpa Meeting

  Fukuoka, Japan

  29–1

  Plenary Sherpa Meeting

  Okinawa, Japan

  July

  8

  Finance Ministers Meeting

  Fukuoka, Japan

  12–13

  Foreign Ministers' Meeting

  Miyazaki, Japan

  21–23

  G7/8 Annual Summit

  Okinawa, Japan

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109935]

  Mr. Hain
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has not purchased any products from Remploy during the last three years.

  Cameroon
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Cameroon in respect of the arrest of Justice Frederick Ebong, Chief Ayamba and James Sam Sabum; and what assurances he has been given concerning(a) their welfare, (b) their condition and (c) location of their detention. [110066]

  Mr. Hain
  Justice Ebong, Chief Ayamba and James Sabum were arrested on 8 and 9 January and are being held in Yaounde for firearm offences, following their alleged participation in demonstrations in the South West. Prison conditions are being monitored by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

  We regularly raise our concerns about human "right"s and prison conditions with the Government of Cameroon (GoC). We have urged them to respect human "right"s and their international obligations. We have also called on them to charge prisoners within 72 hours, as stipulated by Cameroonian law. We did this most recently on 1 February. We will continue to monitor the situation carefully.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received which estimate the total number of members of the Southern Cameroons National Council detained in Yaounde, Buea and Limbe following demonstrations held on 8 and 9 January. [110067]

  Mr. Hain
  The British High Commission in Yaounde has received reports that 25 SCNC members were arrested following these incidents. We are concerned about this as we are about the general deterioration in human "right"s in the Cameroon.

  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received which estimate the total number of English-speaking political prisoners in Nkondengui Prison, Yaounde, Cameroon. [110068]

  Mr. Hain
  We are aware that 25 English-speaking prisoners are being held in Nkondengui Prison, Yaounde. They were arrested for alleged firearms offences.

  Common Foreign and Security Policy
  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans there are to ensure a continuation of democratic scrutiny by delegates from the national parliaments of the member and associate member states of the Western European Union following its being subsumed into the European Union. [109950]

  Mr. Vaz
  The European Union is still considering the modalities for the inclusion of those functions of the WEU necessary for the EU to fulfil its new responsibilities in 588W
  international crisis management. No decisions have been taken in the EU or WEU on the future of the WEU Assembly.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what political structures are planned to implement the common foreign and security policy provisions of the Helsinki European Council agreement. [109955]

  Mr. Vaz
  The report to the Helsinki European Council on strengthening the common European policy on security and defence called for a standing Political and Security Committee to be established, and, as an interim measure, for an interim political and security committee to be set up. It called for appropriate structures to be established for dialogue and information on issues related to security and defence policy and crisis management with European NATO members who are not members of the EU and other countries who are candidates for accession to the EU.

  Mr. Colvin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what changes in European Union political institutions are planned in order to implement the common foreign and security policies agreed at the Helsinki European Council. [109951]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Helsinki European Council adopted conclusions and a report on strengthening the common European policy on security and defence. These do not address the roles of the institutions of the European Union.

  NATO
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what progress has been made in setting up consultative mechanisms to integrate the non-EU member countries of the NATO alliance into the planning and conduct of future EU-led operations. [109976]

  Mr. Vaz
  The Portuguese presidency will report to the Feira European Council in June on proposals for modalities of consultation and/or participation that will allow third states to contribute to EU military crisis management.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what mechanisms have been set up to ensure adequate consultation between NATO and the EU following the EU Presidency Progress report to the Helsinki European Council on strengthening the common European policy on security and defence. [109981]

  Mr. Vaz
  Initially, EU/NATO relations are being developed on an informal basis, through contacts between NATO's Secretary General and the EU's CFSP High Representative. The Portuguese presidency will report to the Feira European Council in June on recommendations for EU/NATO modalities.

  South Africa
  Mr. Fabian Hamilton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of South Africa regarding the case of Mzwakhe Mbuli. [110171]
  589W
  Mr. Hain
  The South African Independent Complaints Directorate (ICD) is still investigating the allegation that the South African police coached witnesses to implicate Mr. Mbuli in the armed robbery for which he was convicted. The High Commission in Cape Town is aware of the investigation and will continue to monitor it.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Cattle
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many of the cattle in the United Kingdom diagnosed as suffering from BSE in each of the last two years for which records are available were(a) female and (b) male. [109329]

  Ms Quin
  The table shows the number of confirmed cases of BSE reported in the UK in the calendar years 1998 and 19991, by sex:

  Sex

  1998

  19991

  Male

  5

  4

  Female

  3,191

  2,166

  Total

  3,196

  2,170

  1 Preliminary figures for 1999 as at 9 February 2000

  GM Crops
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (1) what recent communications he has received from the European Commission regarding the inclusion of(a) 98/294/CE ELGINA Monsanto Bt maize, (b) 97/98/CE COMPA CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize, (c) 97/98/CE JORDI CB Novartis Bt/Ht maize and (d) 98/293/CE CHARDON LL Aventis Ht maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue; and if he will make a statement; [110289]

  (2) what recent advice he has received about the inclusion of (a) 98/294/CE ELGINA Monsanto Bt/Maize, (b) 97/98/CE COMPA CB Novartis Bt/Ht Maize, (c) 97/98/CE JORDI CB Novartis Bt/Ht Maize and (d) 98/293/CE CHARDON LL Aventis Ht Maize GM seeds in the EU Common Catalogue; and if he will make a statement [110323]

  (3) if EU marketing consent has been given for 97/98/CE JORDI CB Novartis Bt/herbicide tolerant maize; on which national seeds lists the seeds are currently included; and if they are subject to field trials in any EU state. [110292]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The EU Commission has written to member states informing them of their proposal to add these varieties to the Common Catalogue, and inviting comments on that proposal. Inclusion on the Common Catalogue is governed by the requirements of EU Directive 70/457 as amended recently by Directive 98/95. It is for the Commission to determine whether all of the requirements of the Directives have been met. We do not have information about field trials in other member states, but CHARDON LL is on the Dutch National List, ELGINA is on the Portuguese National List, COMPA CB is on the Portuguese and Spanish National Lists and JORDI is on the Spanish National List.
  590W
  Inclusion on the Common Catalogue would not practically affect the position in the UK where the voluntary agreement with the seeds/biotec industry ensures that no marketing of these GM varieties will take place until the current programme of farm scale trials has been completed satisfactorily and independently evaluated.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he intends to lay the draft Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 2000 before Parliament. [110322]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The consultation period on these draft Regulations ended on 31 January 2000. We are currently considering the responses we have received and will bring the Regulations before Parliament as soon as possible.

  Regional Service Centres
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what recent discussion he has had with trade unions about closures of his Department's regional service centres. [110180]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: My "right" hon. Friend the Minister is due to meet the Departmental Trade Union Side on 24 February to discuss the report of the Review of CAP Scheme Administration.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the future of his Department's regional service centre in Worcester. [110181]

  Mr. Morley
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: My "right" hon. Friend the Minister is currently considering the report of the review of CAP Scheme Administration which he commissioned from PriceWaterhouseCoopers (PWC) last autumn. The report recommends that the CAP scheme processing functions currently carried out in MAFF and the Intervention Board should be merged to create a new paying agency, and that the IT systems should be redeveloped to enable claim forms to be submitted and processed electronically. Farmers without access to the Internet would be able to submit their forms via third parties. On this basis PWC consider that it will be possible to deliver a significantly better service to claimants and to reduce the cost to the taxpayer of administering the CAP schemes.

  The Department is also drawing up plans to align other aspects of its regional activities with the Government Office network, so as to ensure that it can participate effectively in the formulation of policy at regional level.

  The future of the Department's Regional Service Centre at Worcester and of the other eight Regional Service Centres, will be decided in the context of these two reviews. Radical reorganisation of CAP scheme processing will only be possible if funding can be made available in the Spending Review 2000.

  Regional Offices
  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list his Department's regional offices that are included in the review of service delivery. [110222]
  591W
  Ms Quin
  The Regional Service Centres covered by the Review of CAP Scheme Administration are located in Bristol, Cambridge, Carlisle, Crewe, Exeter, Northallerton, Nottingham, Reading and Worcester. The Intervention Board's offices at Reading and Newcastle upon Tyne are also included in the Review.

  Mr. Martlew
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he received the report he commissioned regarding reorganisation of his Department's regional offices; and if he will make a statement. [110221]

  Ms Quin
  My "right" hon. Friend the Minister received the PriceWaterhouseCoopers report of their Review of CAP Scheme Administration on 25 January 2000. He is currently considering the recommendation to merge the CAP scheme processing functions carried out by MAFF's Regional Service Centres and the Intervention Board.

  Farmers (Low Interest Loans)
  Dan Norris
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to introduce low interest rate loans for farmers. [110236]

  Ms Quin
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply given to my hon. Friend the Member for Chorley (Mr. Hoyle) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 13W.

  Bees
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what powers are available to him to control the importation of bees from New Zealand. [110122]

  Ms Quin
  Importation of bees into the UK is subject to the Importation of Bees Order 1997, which was made under the Bees Act 1980.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many consignments of bees from New Zealand have come to the United Kingdom in each of the last three years; and what authorisations he has issued for the importation of bees from New Zealand during 2000. [110123]

  Ms Quin
  Figures on the number of consignments are not available. However, the numbers of queen bees imported into the United Kingdom from New Zealand in the past three years are 1,305, 977 and 883 respectively. There have as yet been no imports of bees from New Zealand in 2000.

  Genetic Modification
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what plans he has to place genetically modified seeds on the National Seeds List; if any seeds so listed could thereby be used legally in animal feed; and if he will make it his policy not to list any GM seeds until the current programme of safety research has been completed. [109593]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Ministers are required by the Seeds (National Lists of Varieties) Regulations 1982 (as amended) to consider
  592W
  applications for the entry of plant varieties to the UK National List. Such applications are considered against the requirements of these regulations: namely that a variety is distinct, uniform and stable (DUS) and has a value for cultivation and use (VCU) over those varieties already on the National List. Where the statutory criteria are met, a variety may be proposed for addition to the National List, and where they are not, it is proposed for refusal for addition to the National List. People affected by the proposed decision may make representations and be heard before the decision is taken.

  In addition, before a GM plant variety may be proposed for addition to the National List, a marketing consent must have been promulgated under Directive 90/220/EEC, and where appropriate, clearance obtained under the Novel Foods Regulation No.258/97/EEC. Where all of these criteria have been met, a proposal may be made for addition of a plant variety to the National List.A GM forage maize variety (CHARDON LL) has completed National List tests and trials. The trait involved has a marketing clearance under Directive 90/220/EEC, including use for animal feed. It also has clearance under the Novel Foods Regulation. The application for the addition of this variety to the National List is being considered and a decision is likely to be taken shortly about whether to propose the variety for addition to the National List.

  The UK's farm scale evaluation programme is additional to the environmental and health assessments of GM crops referred to above. The recent agreement between Government and SCIMAC precludes the general commercialisation of GM maize until 2003 at the earliest—subject to the results of the farm-scale evaluation programme. The programme is intended to provide objective evidence of the effect of growing of these GM crops on a farm scale on biodiversity.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the antibiotic marker genes, and the antibiotics to which they convey resistance, that have been used in the genetic modification of crops which are used as animal feed in the United Kingdom. [109594]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: Kanamycin and ampicillin resistance marker genes, in either complete or disrupted form, have been used in crops which could be used principally in the form of processed by-products in animal feed. These crops are not grown commercially in this country.

  Farmers (Shropshire)
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers there were in (a) Shrewsbury and Atcham and (b) Shropshire in (i) 1997 and (ii) 1998. [110127]

  Ms Quin
  The figures requested are given in the tables:

  Analysis of the agriculture labour force with Shrewsbury and Atcham

  Category

  1997

  1998

  Total labour force

  2,092

  2,164

  Total farmers, partners and spouses

  1,275

  1,281

  Total all other workers

  817

  883

  593W

  Analysis of the agricultural labour force within Shropshire

  Category

  1997

  1998

  Total labour force

  11,782

  12,069

  Total farmers, partners and spouses

  7,156

  7,338

  Total all other workers

  4,626

  4,731

  Source:

  Agricultural and Horticultural Census

  In 1998 fundamental changes were introduced to the labour questions on the census. It appears that this change may have led to the recording of additional labour that was not previously included on the returns. The change on questions has also led to a redistribution of labour between the various categories. Caution is therefore advised when comparing the 1998 results with previous years.

  Number of confirmed cases in Friesian/Holstein breeds by year of restriction

  Breed

  pre

  1988

  1989

  1990

  1991

  1992

  1993

  Great Britain

  Canadian Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Dutch Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Friesian

  414

  1,859

  5,958

  11,641

  20,885

  29,326

  26,308

  Friesian X

  50

  98

  204

  408

  713

  1,172

  1,393

  Holstein

  16

  51

  146

  274

  469

  472

  394

  Holstein X

  —

  —

  —

  9

  45

  132

  107

  Red Friesian

  —

  2

  8

  28

  50

  72

  46

  Red Friesian X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2

  —

  Red Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  Red Holstein X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  480

  2,010

  6,316

  12,360

  22,163

  31,181

  28,250

  Northern Ireland

  Friesian

  —

  4

  25

  93

  138

  293

  367

  Friesian X

  —

  —

  —

  1

  4

  12

  12

  Friesian/Holstein

  —

  —

  1

  3

  2

  —

  —

  Holstein

  —

  —

  2

  3

  1

  3

  5

  Total

  —

  4

  28

  100

  145

  308

  384

  Total United Kingdom

  480

  2,014

  6,344

  12,460

  22,308

  31,489

  28,634

  Number of confirmed cases in Friesian/Holstein breeds by year of restriction

  Breed

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Great Britain

  Canadian Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  1

  Dutch Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  Friesian

  18,297

  10,767

  6,011

  3,083

  2,228

  1,438

  138,215

  Friesian X

  1,278

  865

  520

  337

  346

  328

  7,712

  Holstein

  260

  159

  111

  90

  96

  81

  2,619

  Holstein X

  87

  22

  11

  2

  12

  5

  432

  Red Friesian

  47

  20

  9

  7

  3

  2

  294

  Red Friesian X

  —

  1

  —

  2

  —

  —

  5

  Red Holstein

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  8

  Red Holstein X

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  2

  Total

  19,970

  11,834

  6,662

  3,522

  2,686

  1,855

  149,289

  Farmers Network
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make it his policy to support the establishment of a national network of farmers' markets. [109807]

  Ms Quin
  We support the establishment of a national network of farmers' markets and we are working closely with the National Association of Farmers' Markets who have been set up to promote the development of farmers' markets.

  BSE
  Mr. Collins
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will publish the latest figures for the incidence of BSE in Holstein cattle in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [105225]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 January 2000]: From the start of the BSE epidemic until 1 January 2000, the numbers of BSE cases confirmed in the United Kingdom for Holstein cattle, Holstein cross cattle and similar breeds are given in the table.
  595W

  Number of confirmed cases in Friesian/Holstein breeds by year of restriction

  Breed

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  Total

  Northern Ireland

  Friesian

  267

  138

  59

  15

  18

  4

  1,421

  Friesian X

  2

  1

  —

  —

  —

  —

  32

  Friesian/Holstein

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  6

  Holstein

  7

  4

  3

  —

  —

  —

  28

  Total

  276

  143

  62

  15

  18

  4

  1,487

  Total United Kingdom

  20,246

  11,977

  6,724

  3,537

  2,704

  1,859

  150,776

  Note:

  Includes data from the Channel Islands and Isle of Man

  Incidence of disease cannot be calculated as my Department does not hold data on the number of cattle resident in the UK by breed.

  Pig Sector
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the pig industry. [105108]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 17 January 2000]: Although pig market prices are 12 per cent. higher this year than last, they remain below the cost of production. As a result, pig producers are experiencing severe difficulties and the British pig breeding herd is contracting. Market prospects continue to be depressed, but there should be some further recovery in prices. Our policy is to continue to draw attention to the quality standards and high animal welfare standards in British pig production methods and to encourage retailers and caterers to take this into account when sourcing pigmeat products. The work of MAFF's verification officer is important in these respects. Frequent discussions are held with representatives of the industry.

  Sulphuric Acid
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what studies he has(a) commissioned and (b) received on the effect on wildlife of spraying sulphuric acid on crops; and if he will publish the results of such studies. [103394]

  Ms Quin
  Sulphuric acid is approved as "commodity chemical"—a substance which has pesticidal uses but for which the major uses are non-pesticidal and which no company wishes to market as a pesticide. Commodity chemicals are assessed on the basis of information in the public domain and MAFF has not commissioned studies concerning effects on wildlife. However, under the Wildlife Incident Investigation Scheme, MAFF encourages the reporting of incidents suspected of being caused by pesticides and investigates all reports received. No incidents involving sulphuric acid have been reported in the past decade.

  The most recent evaluation of sulphuric acid has been published and the underlying information is available for inspection at the Pesticides Safety Directorate in York.

WALES

  Children in Care
  Mr. Win Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about children in care in Wales. [108919]

  Mr. Hanson
  I meet the First Secretary regularly to discuss a number of issues and my hon. Friend has regular discussions with Jane Hutt the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary with responsibility for children in care.

  Rail Transport
  Mrs. Betty Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about rail transport in Wales. [108921]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet with the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a range of issues, including transport in Wales generally and rail transport specifically.

  Mr. Donald Anderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with the First Secretary about rail transport in Wales. [108932]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet with the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss a range of issues, including transport in Wales generally and rail transport specifically. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also meets regularly with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government, Environment and Transport.

  Cross-border Co-ordination
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will establish a formal mechanism to ensure cross-border co-ordination of decisions affecting communities living close to the English/Welsh border. [108922]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Assembly and its sponsored bodies already have effective arrangements for cross-border co-ordination of decisions with Departments and NDPBs dealing with England. An additional central mechanism would add nothing to these arrangements.

  Local Government Finance
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he expects to meet the First Secretary to discuss the funding of local government in Wales. [108923]
  597W
  Mr. Hanson
  My "right" hon. Friend meets the First Secretary regularly to discuss a range of issues including the funding of local government in Wales. The allocation of funding to local authorities is a matter for the National Assembly for Wales.

  National Farmers Union
  Mr. Jack
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last received correspondence from the leadership of the National Farmers Union in Wales. [108924]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I last received correspondence from the leadership of the National Farmers Union in Wales in late December and I addressed their Welsh Surgery on 1 February.

  Transport
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he has met the First Secretary to discuss the Government's legislative programme and its impact on transport in Wales. [108925]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss a wide range of issues including the impact of transport in Wales and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State also meets regularly with the Assembly Secretary for Local Government, Environment and Transport and has discussed the Transport Bill with him.

  The Transport Bill was introduced on 1 December 1999 and plays a key role in the implementation of the integrated transport strategy for England and Wales. Responsibility for many aspects of transport in Wales was transferred to the National Assembly for Wales on 1 July 1999. The main exceptions are railways, air and sea transport, which remain a central Government responsibility, working in close co-operation with the Assembly on matters affecting Wales. I am keen to continue dialogue with the Assembly and Cabinet colleagues in order to determine how best to meet the transport needs of Wales.

  Social Inclusion
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement about the development of policies to promote social inclusion in Wales. [108926]

  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the development of policies to promote social inclusion in Wales. [108927]

  Mr. Hanson
  This Government are committed to tackling Poverty and Social Exclusion. My "right" hon. Friend and I are keen to ensure that central Government and the devolved administration in Wales are working together in partnership to promote social inclusion.

  I attended the launch of the Government's new Anti-Poverty Strategy in Wales with the Assembly Health Secretary, Jane Hutt, in September. The Assembly is committed to promoting social inclusion and ensuring that strategies, objectives and targets are integrated and give a high priority to the most disadvantaged.
  598W
  The Joint Ministerial Group on Poverty, on which both the Assembly and the Wales Office are represented, had been set up to tackle poverty and social exclusion in a co-ordinated way.

  New Deal (Young People)
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what assessment he has made of additionality in the New Deal for Young People in Wales. [108928]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I have made no such assessment. New Deal for young people is the responsibility of the Department for Education and Employment, on an England and Wales basis. I understand that the Department for Education and Employment have recently undertaken such an assessment covering England and Wales.

  Job Creation
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales how many jobs have been created in Wales since May 1997. [108929]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  Figures are not kept for numbers of jobs created in Wales. However, between May 1997 and December 1999 the seasonally adjusted count of claimants of unemployment-related benefit (i.e. Jobseeker's Allowance) has fallen from 81,800 to 59,200, a fall of 22,400 or 27 per cent.

  Higher Education Funding
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what recent discussions he has had with members of the Welsh Assembly on the funding of students at universities in Wales. [108931]

  Mr. Hanson
  I recently met with the National Assembly for Wales Secretary for Education and Training, when we discussed a number of issues including the funding of students at universities in Wales. Mr. Middlehurst has said that he will announce in due course increased help for students at higher education institutions in Wales through the Assembly's Higher Education Student Access funds.

  Public Expenditure
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about overall public expenditure in Wales. [108933]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I usually meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues, including this one.

  Assembly Budget
  Sir Raymond Powell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what discussions he has had with the First Secretary about the budget for the National Assembly for Wales for 2000–01. [108934]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I normally meet the Assembly First Secretary on a weekly basis to discuss a range of issues, including this one.

  Farming
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he last met the First Secretary and the Agriculture Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss farming in Wales. [108935]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  I meet the First Secretary on a weekly basis and we discuss farming in Wales and the whole spectrum of Welsh agriculture. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales met the Agriculture Secretary of the National Assembly to discuss farming in Wales in late January.

  Advertising Budget
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110254]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  My Department had no advertising budget at its inception on 1 July 1999 and it has no advertising budget proposed for 2000–01.

  Block Grant
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will make a statement on the size of the block grant for Wales for the next financial year. [108910]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The total Welsh Budget for the National Assembly in 2000–01 is £7,927 million. This is a current figure which may be subject to some small changes reflecting transfers to and from other Government Departments.

  Health (Cynon Valley)
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales if he will discuss with the First Secretary health issues in the Cynon Valley. [108918]

  Mr. Hanson
  My "right" hon. Friend has regular meetings with the First Secretary to discuss issues affecting Wales, including health. I meet regularly with Jane Hutt, the Assembly Health and Social Services Secretary. Both my "right" hon. Friend and I would be happy to discuss any issues raised with us during these meetings.

  Funding
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what steps he is taking to maximise funding for Wales from abroad. [108920]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  As part of the partnership between the National Assembly and central Government I do all I can to secure inward funding.

  I am particularly pleased to note that in the period 1 May 1997 to 31 December 1999, the Welsh Development Agency has recorded 284 inward investment projects promising a total of 22,522 new jobs, 9,925 safeguarded jobs and capital investment of £1.9 billion.

CABINET OFFICE

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) if she will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by her Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source; [110195]

  (2) what steps she has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by her Department come from a sustainable source. [110194]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Cabinet Office purchases paper and timber products which come from sustainably managed sources, in line with environmental guidance prepared by HM Treasury and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  The Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) label is accepted by buyers as demonstrating that timber and timber products have come from sustainably managed sources. However, it is not practicable to require that all paper and timber products purchased by the Cabinet Office are independently certified by the FSC because this might discriminate against any equally valid schemes and therefore be against public procurement. Specifying just the FSC label might also result in us failing to meet all our requirements as currently only a small percentage of timber products are currently FSC certified.

  "Better Government for Older People"
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what plans she has to increase the number of Better Government for Older People pilot programmes; and if she will establish a pilot programme in Peterborough. [109989]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  The Better Government for Older People programme was launched in June 1998 with 28 local authority led pilots spread throughout the UK. The pilot phase ends in March. The evaluation and application phase will continue until the end of the year.

  The Better Government for Older People Programme (BGOP) aims to improve service delivery; give older people more say; celebrate older people as achievers; and encourage improved partnerships. It is a key part of our modernising Government initiative. BGOP will provide a substantial amount of evidence on what works best in involving older people and better designing services to meet their needs. We aim to spread the lessons emerging from the programme as widely and as quickly as possible through the BGOP Network, which is open to all local authorities. Network events are being held throughout the UK, with the closest one to Peterborough being the Cambridge event on 9 March.

  Research Contracts
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer of 21 December 1999,Official Report, column 573W, on departmental research contracts, if she will (a) state total expenditure on research let by her

  601W
  Department since May 1997 and (b) list the titles of all research contracts let by her Department during 1999 and costing £20,000 or more, stating what is the value of each contract, and in each case whether the contract included (i) departmental veto over publication of the research results, (ii) departmental control over the date of publication of the research and (iii) a requirement that

  Title

  Value (£)

  "right" of Veto

  Date control

  Departmental amendments

  Performance Management Working Group Report

  24,555

  Yes

  Internal use only

  Yes

  People Survey

  25,000

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Equality Proofing Research

  27,436

  No

  Yes

  Yes

  PCSPS 2000 Attitude Survey

  28,000

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Women's Incomes Over Lifetime Research

  32,415

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  IT Infrastructure Library Redevelopment

  36,500

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Governance in the Digital Economy

  36.806

  No

  No

  Yes

  Demand for 24 hour Public Service Delivery

  54,200

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Research for Information System Management Guides

  60,000

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Peoples' Panel Ethnic Minority Booster Research

  61,500

  Yes

  Yes

  Yes

  Information for earlier years can be obtained only at disproportionate cost. A copy of the standard Cabinet Office terms and conditions has been placed in the Library.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Mr. Prior
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what proportion of those entitled to the £100 winter fuel payment to pensioners have received it. [110341]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Peter Mathison, Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. He will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Peter Mathison to Mr. David Prior, dated 15 February 2000:
  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your recent parliamentary question asking what proportion of those pensioners entitled to a £100 Winter Fuel Payment have now received it.
  I can now advise that of the 5,313,477 customers across all benefits identified as entitled to a £100 Winter Fuel Payment, 98% have now received their entitlement. The remaining 2% are those payments which have not been collected from the Post Office and which have been returned to the Benefit Agency (BA). They are returned for security reasons so that BA can investigate why it has not been collected by the intended recipient and determine whether any payment should be made.

  I hope this is helpful.

  Remploy
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what Remploy products his Department has purchased in the last three years. [109929]

  Angela Eagle
  Over the past three years the Department has purchased bespoke office furniture from Remploy which has been manufactured by its network of sites. The Department continues to buy furniture from Remploy. Over the last three years orders amounting to £169,000 in 1997–98, £230,000 in 1998–99 and £178,000 in the current year have been placed.
  602W
  the final research results incorporate departmental amendments; and if she will place a copy of the standard research contract currently in use by her Department in the Library. [107093]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  Details of my Department's expenditure on research contracts let during 1999 and costing £20,000 or more are as follows:

  In addition, up to 1998, Remploy supplied printed forms to the Department. The contract for this work was re-tendered, using EU Procurement procedures. Remploy were unsuccessful in bidding for printed forms but were awarded the contract to supply business cards and other bespoke personal products to the Department. This contract is for three years, expiring in 2001. Orders totalling £21,000 in 1997–98 for printed forms were placed with Remploy. Business cards and other printed items have been purchased totalling £17,000 in 1998–99 and £6,000 to date in the current financial year. Orders this year have reduced, in part, due to a reduction in the movement of staff.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source. [110198]

  Mr. Bayley
  The Government, through the Green Ministers Committee, has issued a model framework which departments have used as the basis for preparing their own environmental strategies. Among its key aims is to: conserve resources and minimise waste by reducing our reliance on virgin materials and ensuring that any products derived from wildlife—such as paper and timber—are from sustainable sources and comply with EU and international trading agreements such as the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species (CITES).

  This Department's policy statement/improvement programme which closely follows the model requires that all virgin paper used in products supplied to the Department, whether in its own "right" or as a consequence of recycled material, is obtained from sustainable managed forest sources. It also provides for timber, wood and plywood to be obtained from sustainable sources. With ownership of the Department's estate having been transferred to the private sector under the Prime contract

  603W
  the Department ensured that these commitments are enshrined in the outsourcing arrangements. The contract states:
  "the Prime contractor's purchasing policy will exclude the use of unsustainable timber".

  The Department and its contractors monitor performance on these and other aspects of its operations and reports on progress made.

  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110199]

  Mr. Bayley
  The FSC label is accepted by buyers as demonstrating that timber and timber products have come from sustainably managed sources.

  However it is not practicable to require that all paper and timber products purchased by the Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council because this might discriminate against any equally valid schemes and therefore be against public procurement rules.

  Specifying just the FSC label might also result in us failing to meet all our requirements as only a tiny percentage of timber products are currently FSC certified. This is why the Department's policy statement for greening its operations contains a requirement to ensure that suppliers of paper and paper products have in place an acceptable Environmental Policy and requires satisfactory evidence of compliance with published trade or other acceptable environmental standards and guidelines. It also provides for documented proof or, if available, adequate validation under an internationally recognised certification or ecolabelling scheme to ensure that timber, wood or plywood acquired by the Department, or its contractors come from sustainable resources.

  Advertising Budgets
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110271]

  Mr. Rooker
  The average cost of issuing a media release by this Department in 1999 was £51. This figure includes the costs incurred by Headquarters and Agencies. The figure given is the cost charged to us by the Central Office of Information who distribute media releases on our behalf to the national media.

  The circulation spread covers all national and regional newspapers; broadcast—both visual and radio; and specialist magazines including the specialist ethnic and disability press. In addition, Benefits Agency releases are also distributed to local newspapers including free news sheets.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his Department's advertising budget for(a) 1999–2000 and (b) 2000–01. [110258]

  Mr. Rooker
  Information is not available in the format requested as the Department does not allocate an annual budget specifically for advertising. Any expenditure on advertising is included in the publicity budget. Such information as is available is as follows.
  604W
  For the current financial year the budget for Headquarters and the Benefits Agency was £10,155 million. This amount covers the publicity for the whole range of Social Security benefits in addition to information about pensions and fraud. The amount includes the production of information leaflets, helplines, advertising, exhibitions, research and other marketing activity.

  The publicity budget for 2000–01 is still under discussion and not yet finalised.

HEALTH

  Comparative Statistics
  Mr. Lilley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish figures showing the index for patients who waited less than two hours for emergency admission in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 1998–99 for (i) England, (ii) East and North Hertfordshire, (iii) West Hertfordshire and (iv) the health authority in the prospering growth area with the (1) lowest figure and (2) highest figure. [109747]

  Ms Stuart
  The 1998–99 figures showing the index for patients who waited less than two hours for emergency admissions were published in "Quality and Performance in the NHS: High Level Performance Indicators" in June 1999, copies of which are available in the Library. 1998–99 was the first year for which information on emergency admissions was published using this format.

  Care (Elderly)
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the latest available data on the indicators relating to(a) intensive home care for people aged over 65 years in England and (b) community based care for people over 65 years in England, in the Personal Social Services Performance Assessment Framework. [109848]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: The data for indicators in the Personal Social Services Performance Assessment Framework were published on 24 November 1999 in a summary form in "Social Services Performance 1998–99" and in detail in the form of computer tables on the Department of Health's internet site (reference: www.doh.gov.uk/paf/). Final revisions to this data notified to the Department by local authorities will be incorporated into the computer tables by the early summer of this year. Data for 1999–2000 will be published in autumn 2000.

  Departmental Expenditure Limits
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to amend the Department of Health departmental expenditure limit/running cost limit for 1999–2000. [110675]

  Mr. Milburn
  Subject to Parliamentary approval of the necessary Supplementary Estimates for Class II, Votes 1 and 2 the Department of Health Departmental Expenditure Limit for 1999–2000 will be increased by £302,308,000 from £40,455,019,000 to £40,757,327,000. The increase is the net effect of changes to Class II, Vote 1 (Hospital, community health, family health and related services, England) of £261,646,000 made up of £113,671,000 in respect of the take up of end year flexibility for NHS
  605W
  trusts, £134,000,000 from the reserve for the cost of generic drugs and clinical negligence claims and £14,000,000 from the capital modernisation fund. In addition the following transfers will take place; £1,094,000 from Northern Ireland for out of area treatments; £177,000 from the National Assembly for Wales general practitioner drug costs and £155,000 from Class III, Vote 1 (Environment, Transport and the Regions: Housing, construction, regeneration, countryside and wildlife, England) for the Victoria Pilot Project. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £1,250,000 to Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) for the road traffic accident element of the Compensation Recovery Unit; £190,000 to Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scottish Executive) for student bursaries and £11,000 to Class XIV, Vote 1 (National Assembly for Wales) for the Dental Service Increment for Teaching.

  The increase of £40,662,000 for Class II, Vote 2 (Department of Health, administration, miscellaneous health and personal social services, England) is the net effect of transfers (detailed below) and £16,460,000 take-up of end year flexibility (as announced by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on 27 July 1999, Official Report, column 393 and £25,000,000 for claims in respect of asylum seekers grant; £580,000 (£60,000 running costs) from Class IV, Vote 1 (Home Office: administration, police, immigration and other services, England and Wales) for teenage pregnancy unit, publicity and drug project development work; £60,000 (running costs) from Class I, Vote 1 (Department for Education and Employment: programmes and central services), £60,000 (running costs) from Class III, Vote 5 (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: administration) and £60,000 (running costs) from Class XII, Vote 3 (Department of Social Security: administration) for the teenage pregnancy unit; £67,000 (running costs) from Class XIII, Vote 1 (Scotland and transfers to the Scottish Consolidated Fund) for the National Screening Committee; £4,000 (running costs) from Department of Health and Social Services, Northern Ireland for the National Screening Committee and Human Genetics
  606W
  Commission. The overall increase is partially offset by transfers of £1,629,000 (£138,000 running costs) to Class X, Vote 2 (Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food) for BSE Inquiry costs.

  The Department's gross running cost limit will be decreased by £117,000 from £280,450,000 to £280,333,000 made up of an increase of £173,000 (detailed above) offset by and a transfer within DH DEL to programme expenditure of £290,000 for surveys and research.

  The external finance limit for NHS trusts has decreased by £122,596,000 (£50,000,000 non-Voted) from £166,596,000 to £44,000,000.

  All increases will either be offset by transfers to or from other Departmental Expenditure Limits (detailed above) or charges to the DEL Reserve and will not therefore add to the planned total of public expenditure.

  Hospital Waiting Lists (Essex)
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Mid Essex Hospital Trust area have been treated privately but paid for by the NHS to help reduce waiting lists in the last 12 months for which figures are available; how much this has cost the NHS; how much it would have cost the NHS if an NHS hospital had carried out the treatment; and what were the transport costs for the patients. [109971]

  Mr. Denham
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Dental Laboratories
  Mr. Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what criteria dental laboratories have to fulfil before being allowed to be used for NHS dental work. [110392]

  Mr. Hutton
  Dental laboratories, as manufacturers of custom made appliances, must meet the requirements of the Medical Devices Regulations (SI 1994 No 3017) which include registering with the Medical Devices Agency.

TREASURY

  Nancekuke
  Ms Atherton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the documents relating to Nancekuke which have been made public that had previously been restricted under the 30 year rule. [109946]

  Dr. Moonie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following a request from a journalist in July 1999, the Office for National Statistics authorised the early release of a file containing details of a study they had undertaken for the Ministry of Defence, looking at the incidence of industrially related illnesses at the Nancekuke establishment. A number of other papers, unrelated to Nancekuke, were authorised for release at the same time. The file containing the Nancekuke study, with the exception of one document containing individuals' names and medical records, was transferred to the Public Record Office in December 1999 and should now be available for public inspection under their reference RG 26.449.

  Registration
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the Registrar General has reported his findings of the outcome of consultation following the publication of "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service", on 8 September 1999; and if he will make a statement. [110893]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The consultation period for "Registration: Modernising a Vital Service" ended on 6 December 1999. Over 3,500 copies of the consultation paper and 25,000 summary leaflets were distributed. The consultation paper was also available on the Office for National Statistics web-site.

  There were around 1,000 responses to the consultation paper from a wide variety of organisations, local authorities, members of the public and registration officers. There was widespread support for providing registration services in new ways, for better integration with other public services, for improving the use of technology to capture, store and share registration information and for determining national standards. These findings support the Government's commitment to the modernisation of public services in extending the scope of services and information available from civil registration and invoking better use of technology to share information in order, for example, to counter fraud.

  I have asked the Registrar General to open discussions to take forward the modernisation of civil registration. Plans for such reforms will be published by the Government in a policy document.

  Bonds
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the advantages and disadvantages of allowing for third party monitoring where individuals enter into agreements for the issuing of bonds. [110295]
  608W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  There has been no specific consideration of third party monitoring. However, issues of bonds and other debt securities in the UK, whether by individuals or corporate entities already need to conform with various requirements. In the case of bonds to be admitted to the Official List, issues need to comply with the Listing Rules. In the case of unlisted bonds, the relevant legislation is the Public Offers of Securities Regulations 1995.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he is taking to ensure that individuals who invest in bonds receive proper advice and guidance. [110294]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK has a very robust investor protection system. The Financial Services and Markets Bill will enhance and streamline this further, with the introduction of a single regulator supervising a more integrated and efficient approach.

  Investors can choose to make decisions on their own, without taking professional advice, but they have a "right" to receive accurate information that they need to decide whether the investment is "right" for them, in their circumstances.

  Investors who do receive advice must be told about the status of the person they deal with; be asked about their circumstances; be told why an investment is suitable for them in those circumstances; and must be given clear information about commission and charges, the risk, and the aims and benefits of the investment, confirmed in writing.

  IR35
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what date the Inland Revenue will be in a position to inform an independent contractor whether his tax position for 2000–01 will be changed under the IR35 proposals. [110184]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: Detailed guidance on the application of the law on employment status to workers using service companies was published on 7 February and is available in the House of Commons Library. The Inland Revenue will give advice on whether the proposed legislation will apply to current contracts which extend beyond 6 April. The guidance, and information on how to get advice from the Inland Revenue, is available on the Inland Revenue website at www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ir35.

  National Insurance Fund
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the expected balance in the National Insurance Fund at the end of the years 2000–01 and 2000–02, after taking into account proposed changes in contribution rates and the effects of the provisions of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 and the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill; and by how much the balance is expected to exceed the minimum level recommended by the Government Actuary. [108315]
  609W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 3 February 2000]: Estimates for Great Britain are shown in the table:

  £ million

  Fund balance 1

  Minimum level

  Excess

  2000–012

  16,660

  7,870

  8,790

  2001–022

  18,820

  8,280

  10,540

  1 At the end of the year

  2 The estimates for these years are based on the difference between forecasts or receipts and expenditure. Changes in these forecasts could have a substantial impact on the balance

  Unemployment Statistics
  Mr. Maclean
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will provide a breakdown of the average monthly flow from the unemployment count for claimants aged 18 to 24 and unemployed for over six months for(a) each year from 1990 to 1999, (b) April 1993 to May 1997, (c) October 1997 to March 1998 and (d) April 1998 to the latest available month; [109273]

  (2) if he will provide a breakdown of the average monthly flow from the unemployment count for claimants aged over 25 and unemployed for over two years for the periods (a) April 1993 to May 1997, (b) May 1997 to June 1998 and (c) June 1998 to the latest available month. [109274]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. David Maclean, dated February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on the average monthly flow from the unemployment count for claimants aged 18 to 24 and unemployed for over six months, and for claimants aged over 25 and unemployed for over two years.
  The ONS publishes a monthly count of claimants of unemployment-related benefits. The claimant count consists of all people claiming Jobseeker's Allowance or National Insurance credits at Employment Service local offices. They must declare that they are out of work, capable of, available for, and actively seeking work during the week in which the claim is made.
  Information on the numbers of people entering and leaving the claimant count by age and duration on the unadjusted basis can be obtained from the Nomis database at the House of Commons Library.
  Between April 1993 and May 1997 in Great Britain on average there were 18,325 (4.6%) claimants aged 25 and over who had been claiming unemployment-related benefit for 2 years or more (computerised claims only) leaving the claimant count each month. The corresponding figure was 16,579 (7.3%) between May 1997 and June 1998 and 8,498 (5.8%) between June 1998 and December 1999. Computerised claims by age and duration data for Northern Ireland is only available from February 1994, therefore the data refer to Great Britain.

  NIRS2
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will estimate the amount of interest received by the Government as a result of the late payment of benefits to pensioners due to the NIRS2 computer problem(a) to date and (b) by the end of 2000. [109849]
  610W
  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 11 February 2000]: I regret the information requested can be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Household Incomes
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will list the average household income for each region in descending order for each of the past 10 years; [110207]

  (2) if he will list the percentage of household incomes derived from social security benefits in each region of the UK in descending order. [110211]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 16 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent parliamentary questions on average household incomes and the percentage of household incomes derived from social security benefit.
  The attached table shows information from the Family Expenditure Survey (FES) for the period 1992 to 1998–99. Data for earlier years are not readily available and are for two-year periods.
  Like all estimates from sample surveys, these figures are subject to sampling variability, so while general trends can be seen, care should be taken in interpreting short-term changes in the data. In 1998–99, for example, in most regions the true average is unlikely to differ from the estimate by more than 7 per cent either way, but in Northern Ireland it may be 15 per cent either way and in the North West 13 per cent, both areas having small samples. In the Rest of the South East, however, the range is only 5 per cent either way. Standard Statistical Regions (SSRs) are used for England because data are not available for Government Office Regions for the earlier years.

  The FES shows the proportions of household income derived from social security benefit for 1996–1999 as follows.

  SSRs and UK countries

  Proportion of gross income deriving from social security benefits

  Northern Ireland

  22

  Wales

  19

  North

  18

  Scotland

  16

  North West

  15

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  15

  West Midlands

  14

  East Midlands

  13

  United Kingdom

  13

  England

  12

  South West

  12

  East Anglia

  12

  Greater London

  10

  Rest of South East

  9

  611W
  These figures are also subject to sampling variability. Data for 1996–97, 1997–98 and 1998–99 have therefore been combined to reduce this variability. In most regions the true figure for each percentage is unlikely to differ from the estimate by more than 1½ percentage points either way. In Northern Ireland the range is 3½ percentage points each way but in the Rest of the South East less than 1. SSRs are used for England because data are not available for Government Office Regions for the earlier years requested in the average household income question.

  Technical note

  The ranges quoted are the 90% confidence intervals. There is only a one-in-ten chance that the true figure lies outside this estimated range.

  Average gross weekly household income by Standard Statistical Region and UK country ranked in descending order, 1992 to 1998–99

  £

  Gross Income

  1992

  Rest of South East

  420

  Greater London

  390

  England

  350

  East Anglia

  350

  South West

  350

  East Midlands

  340

  United Kingdom

  340

  North West

  320

  Scotland

  310

  West Midlands

  300

  Yorks and Humber

  300

  Wales

  290

  North

  290

  Northern Ireland

  270

  1993

  Greater London

  430

  Rest of South East

  420

  England

  360

  United Kingdom

  350

  East Anglia

  350

  East Midlands

  340

  North West

  340

  Scotland

  330

  South West

  330

  Northern Ireland

  330

  Yorks and Humber

  320

  Wales

  310

  West Midlands

  300

  North

  290

  1994–95

  Rest of South East

  440

  Greater London

  440

  South West

  380

  England

  380

  United Kingdom

  370

  East Midlands

  370

  Scotland

  360

  Northern Ireland

  350

  East Anglia

  350

  Yorks and Humber

  340

  North West

  340

  West Midlands

  320

  North

  300

  Wales

  280

  1995–96

  Greater London

  450

  Rest of South East

  440

  East Midlands

  390

  South West

  390

  England

  390

  United Kingdom

  380

  612W

  Average gross weekly household income by Standard Statistical Region and UK country ranked in descending order, 1992 to 1998–99

  £

  Gross Income

  Wales

  360

  North West

  360

  East Anglia

  350

  West Midlands

  350

  Yorks and Humber

  340

  North

  340

  Scotland

  340

  Northern Ireland

  300

  1996–97

  Rest of South East

  480

  Greater London

  450

  England

  400

  South West

  400

  East Anglia

  400

  United Kingdom

  400

  North West

  380

  East Midlands

  370

  Scotland

  370

  Yorks and Humber

  360

  West Midlands

  360

  Wales

  360

  North

  330

  Northern Ireland

  320

  1997–98

  Rest of South East

  510

  Greater London

  490

  England

  430

  South West

  420

  United Kingdom

  420

  East Midlands

  420

  West Midlands

  410

  North West

  400

  East Anglia

  390

  Scotland

  370

  Yorks and Humber

  360

  Wales

  350

  North

  350

  Northern Ireland

  340

  1998–99

  Greater London

  540

  Rest of South East

  540

  England

  460

  East Anglia

  450

  United Kingdom

  450

  West Midlands

  430

  Yorks and Humber

  430

  South West

  410

  North West

  410

  East Midlands

  410

  North

  410

  Scotland

  380

  Wales

  360

  Northern Ireland

  360

  Note:

  ONS, Family Expenditure Surveys 1992 to 1998–99 © Crown copy"right" 2000

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average level of consumer debt owed by families for each of the last 10 years; and what his forecast is for each of the next three years. [110210]
  613W
  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 16 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on consumer debt.
  The consumer borrowing series that are readily available, consumer credit and mortgage lending, are published in Table 3.2B of Financial Statistics, a copy of which is in the House of Commons library. The database identifiers are VZRD and AMWT respectively.
  Information is not available on the number of families, from which to derive an average. Data on the number of households in Great Britain are published in the annual volume Housing and Construction Statistics, published by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. Using estimates of the number of households in the United Kingdom (UK), the average level of consumer borrowing per household was approximately £22,800 in 1998, the latest data available.

  We do not make forecasts of these series.

  Savings
  Mr. Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the average savings per person expressed as a percentage of take-home pay for each of the past 10 years. [110168]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 15 February 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 16 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics, I have been asked to reply to your question on average savings per person expressed as a percentage of take home pay.
  The precise information requested is not available. However, the households' saving ratio is considered to provide the best available indicator of trends in changes in saving rates. This is derived as the ratio of savings to the total of resources available (more commonly known as disposable income) of the combined households and non-profit institutions serving households (NPISH) sector.
  The households' saving ratio is published quarterly in the ONS First Release, "Quarterly National Accounts". The series is held on the ONS database. All sources are available in the House of Commons library.

  Household Debt
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the latest estimate of total household debt(a) including housing debt and (b) excluding housing debt; and what were the comparable figures for each May since May 1997. [110092]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Mr. Nick St. Aubyn, dated 16 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your parliamentary question on household debt.
  614W
  The figures you requested are tabulated below. National accounts are prepared quarterly and the closest period to May 1997 for which there are data is end-June 1997.
  Information on the financial liabilities of the household sector is published in the ONS "Financial Statistics", and is held on the ONS databank. All sources are available in the library.

  Household sector financial liabilities (debt)

  £ billion, at end period

  Total

  Excluding loans secured on dwellings

  June 1997

  574.0

  153.7

  June 1998

  608.1

  166.7

  June 1999

  651.8

  179.8

  September 1999

  666.7

  183.0

  Database identifier

  NNPP

  NNPP-NNRQ-NNRR-NNRS

  Household Savings
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of household savings(a) as a percentage of gross domestic product and (b) in nominal cash terms; and what were the comparable figures for each year since May 1997. [110091]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The information requested falls within the responsibility of the Director of the Office for National Statistics. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Tim Holt to Nick St. Aubyn, dated 16 February 2000:
  As Director of the Office for National Statistics (ONS), I have been asked to reply to your recent question on household savings.
  The figures you requested are tabulated below. The latest year available is the twelve month period to September 1999. National accounts are prepared quarterly and the closest period to May 1997 for which there are data is the period April 1997 to March 1998.
  Estimates for household saving and GDP are published quarterly in the ONS First Release "Quarterly National Accounts", and the data are held on the ONS database—all sources being available in the library.

  Household saving 1 (at current prices) £ billion

  Household saving 1 as a percentage of gross domestic product Percentage

  Database identifier:

  RPQL

  RPQL/YBHA

  April 1997 to March 1998

  50.3

  6.2

  April 1998 to March 1999

  32.9

  3.8

  October 1998 to September 1999

  34.8

  4.0

  1 Household saving includes saving of non-profit institutions serving households. Separate data for the household sector are not available.

  Paper and Timber Products
  Mr. Reed
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what steps he has taken to ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department come from a sustainable source; [110159]

  (2) if he will ensure that paper and timber products purchased by his Department are independently certified by the Forest Stewardship Council as coming from a sustainable source. [110160]
  615W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to him by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes) on 14 February 2000,Official Report, columns 357–58W.

  Gold Sales
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the present sterling value of the euros which were purchased from the proceeds of the gold sold from the United Kingdom national reserves in 1999; what value that amount of gold would represent in sterling in today's market; and if he will provide similar statistics for the gold sold in 2000 to date. [110218]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The results of the gold auctions held on 7 July 1999, 21 September 1999, 29 November 1999 and 25 January 2000 are published in Bank of England Press Notices issued on those days. Copies of the Press Notices have been placed in the House of Commons Library. The proceeds from sales of gold have been invested in interest bearing foreign currency assets in broadly the same proportion as currently held in the net foreign currency reserves (40 per cent. dollars; 40 per cent. euro; and 20 per cent. yen).

  Charities
  Mr. St. Aubyn
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the change in registered charities' receipts since the ending of the dividend tax credit in each year since 1997–98; and what is the estimated average in the current financial year and each of the next three financial years. [110110]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 14 February 2000]: The withdrawal of payable tax credits on charities' dividend income did not come into effect until April 1999.
  616W
  In recognition of their special position, charities will receive generous compensation through public expenditure in the form of a payment of a percentage of the dividends they receive. This will apply for five years from 6 April 1999 on a tapering basis.

  The Charity Commission reports £19.75 billion of total annual income at the end of December 1998 in England and Wales (an average of £122 thousand, although nearly three-quarters of registered charities have an income of £10,000 or less).

  The latest available figures from the Register show that at the end of September 1999 total annual income had risen to £22.4 billion (an average of £139 thousand). Forecasts of annual income are unavailable.

  Debt Rescheduling (Russia)
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the arrangements made for debt rescheduling with Russia by the London Club of major creditor banks. [110421]

  Mr. Timms
  The Russian government has reached a Framework agreement with the London Club of private sector creditors on restructuring its debt. The Government welcome this agreement as it does all efforts by debtors and creditors to resolve their differences amicably.

  Advertising Budget
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the average cost of issuing a media release from his Department in 1999. [110273]

  Mr. Timms
  For the year 1999 the Treasury was billed a total of £23,899.50 for the services of the Central Office of Information, who distribute press releases electronically and by fax. During 1999 the Treasury issued 283 press releases and the total average price was therefore £84.45.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Lord Patel of Blackburn
Adam Hafejee Patel Esquire, having been created Baron Patel of Blackburn, of Langho in the County of Lancashire, for life by Letters Patent dated 14th February 2000—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Taylor of Blackburn and the Baroness Castle of Blackburn.

Information: Government Policy
2.44 p.m.
Lord Pattenasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to appoint a Minister of information.
The Minister of State, Cabinet Office (Lord Falconer of Thoroton): My Lords, the Government have no plans to appoint a Minister of information. There has never been a Minister of information, except in times of war. Ministers are responsible for the information output of their departments and the Prime Minister is responsible for the overall information strategy of the Government.
Lord Patten: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that helpful and full reply. But does the noble and learned Lord realise just how disturbed ordinary people in this country are by the sight of a government being predominantly run by spin doctors, rather than by Ministers? In the country at large, people want to see Ministers answering for the crisis in the health service, for chaos over constitutional reform, and for the problems and delays at the Dome. Further, does the Minister recognise that there is no true form of accountability either in this Chamber or in the other place? Indeed, we saw this only yesterday when the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry was reprimanded in another place for excessive spin-doctoring and for the mendacious activities of these spin doctors—
Noble Lords: Order! Question!
Lord Patten: Would it not be better for them to be brought under democratic control''
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, if I may say so, that was a grotesque misrepresentation of the position. Ministers do answer for decisions. They answer to Parliament; they answer to the media; and they answer to the people.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, in deference to my noble friend Lord Patten, perhaps I may ask the Minister a question. Does the noble and learned Lord realise that some of us will be very grateful for the reply that he has given? We congratulate the Government on finding one thing in this country that they do not wish to change.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am very grateful for that question, coming as it does from a somewhat unaccustomed source.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, can the noble and learned Lord say whether the Government are aware that the three information papers issued by the Cabinet Office this year—namely, Reaching Out, Wiring It Up, and Adding it Up—cost, in total, £54? Is the Minister aware that it is now possible to spend a weekend in Paris for rather less than that sum? Is it not seriously the case that such information documents are way beyond the resources of normal citizens?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I believe that the documents to which the noble Lord refers are three reports from the Performance and Innovation Unit in the Cabinet Office. They are intended to be serious studies of such matters as government policy in the regions. They are not simply information sheets; they are serious studies which have been carried out over a long period of time. It seems to me to be right that they should be as long as they are.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord agree that a Minister, whether new or existing, is needed to prevent the multi-announcement of statements giving the impression that new money is involved with each repetition? I have in mind the case of the £20 million for a "new" hospital admission system, which was announced four times within 12 months.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know the particular announcement to which the noble Lord refers. However, it is important that the Government have been able to say what they are doing; indeed, this has been so since governments began. Governments must do so in an honest and straightforward way, as is the case with this Government. But, from time to time, that will inevitably involve repeating things that have been announced before.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, has the noble and learned Lord read the press reports to the effect that managers in the health service have been thoroughly confused by the numerous repeat announcements of new government expenditure to the extent that they have not the faintest idea whether or not it is new money? What on earth is the point of announcing a new spending initiative on three or four occasions, unless the intention is to convince the public that new money is available when, in fact, it is not?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, in making announcements, for example, about health provision, I do not accept that the Government seek to mislead in any way. Press statements frequently refer to matters that have previously been mentioned. There is nothing misleading about that.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, has the BMA got the matter completely wrong then? The doctors have recently complained bitterly that they are faced with precisely the circumstances that my noble friend Lord Waddington has described. Are they all wrong? Will the Government publish their reply to the BMA strictures?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I do not know to what the noble Lord refers when he refers to the BMA. As I say, it is absolutely right and proper that the Government Information and Communication Service, which issues the information to which the noble Lord refers, should explain both to the medical profession and beyond what the Government are doing. That it does so repeatedly is, in my view, sensible where the public are unaware of what is going on.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, while it is acceptable that the Government should be able to repeat their good messages, is the noble and learned Lord aware that it is not only in the National Health Service that this problem arises? The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food is notorious for putting out press releases stating that farmers are being helped to the tune of x-million or x-billion pounds. Often we find that, instead of this assistance being given at the time of the announcement, it has already been given, or is to be given at some time in the future. The public have the impression that farmers are feather-bedded when they are struggling.
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, I am quite sure that the public's view on farmers is not based on press releases issued by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food; it is based on far more profound matters. I do not know the detail of the particular press release to which the noble Countess refers, but it is perfectly appropriate that the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food should set out what it is doing.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does not the noble and learned Lord understand the real concern that lies behind this Question; namely, the increased politicisation of the government information machine and its increased non- accountability to the democratic process, and in particular to Parliament? What has been the cost and the number of the press releases that have been issued over the course of the past 12 months,
1220
or for the latest date for which figures are available? What was the comparable figure under the previous government?
Lord Falconer of Thoroton: My Lords, it is incredibly important that the Government Information and Communication Service retains the confidence of the people; that it complies with the Civil Service code; that it has guidelines with which it complies; and that those guidelines state that its activities should be relevant to government responsibilities, should be objective and explanatory, not tendentious or polemical, and should not be liable to misrepresentation as being party political; should be conducted in an economic and appropriate way, having regard to the need to be able to justify the costs as expenditure of public funds. I believe that it complies with those guidelines. I believe that it is an important part of the Government's operation. The fact that various elements in the press complain about press releases that are made does not mean, nor does it justify, an outright attack on the GICS, which I believe to be an honourable and effective part of the Civil Service. As regards the number of press releases issued and the comparable costs, I am afraid that I do not have the figures with me, but I shall write to the noble Lord.

Legislation: Revising Chamber Powers
2.53 p.m.
Earl Russellasked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether a legitimate revising chamber should occasionally be able to revise legislation in ways the House of Commons would not have wished.
The Lord Privy Seal (Baroness Jay of Paddington): My Lords, I suspect that the subtleties of the noble Earl's Question are probably more suitable for university seminars than for brief responses at the Dispatch Box. However, I shall summarise the Government's position and hope that that meets with the noble Earl's approval.
Any revising chamber, however legitimate it may be as a revising chamber, must recognise that the ultimate authority rests with the primary chamber. It must be for the latter to decide in each case to accept either revisions proposed by the revising chamber or compromise positions which may differ from those that they might have wished.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I think that everyone in this Chamber accepts the proposition that the will of the other place should usually prevail. However, the proposition that its will should always prevail and the proposition that we need a revising chamber are incompatible. Which of these propositions is the policy of Her Majesty's Government?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am afraid that I do not accept the noble Earl's contention that

1221
those propositions are incompatible. As I said in my original response, is obviously—as the noble Earl has accepted—the constitutionally accepted position that the other place is the pre-eminent Chamber— of Parliament. As I said in my original reply, there may be occasions on which the position of this Chamber—or that of any revising chamber—may be considered by another place and it may indeed be accepted. I remember the noble Earl's generous remarks on the occasion of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill only a week ago when he said that it was incumbent on him to express his intense pleasure that on that occasion the Government listened to this House. Ultimately it is for the primary Chamber to maintain a primary position.
Lord Peston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that for once the noble Earl is somewhat illogical? It seems 1.0 me to be perfectly compatible for the revising Chamber to revise and for the ultimately democratic Chamber to make up its mind on what should pass into legislation. I personally have no difficulty with that as long as the House of Commons at least listens to what we have to say. That, surely, is the central point of what we do as revisers. Does my noble friend agree with that?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as so often, my noble friend, in suggesting that the noble Earl was illogical, is more exact than I dared to be when responding. However, I think it was clear from my response to the noble Earl's supplementary question that I believe that there is no incompatibility in what he suggested.
Lord Dean of Harptree: My Lords, will the noble Baroness look favourably on the recommendation of the Royal Commission on the Reform of the House of Lords that your Lordships' House should have power to delay statutory instruments for a short period and to invite another place to think again?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I have made clear on several occasions, the Government do not intend to respond piecemeal to individual recommendations of the Royal Commission. We have accepted it in broad terms as a good basis for further reform. I am sure that the noble Lord will be aware that the Royal Commission recognised that the second Chamber should always be subordinate, even when fully reformed.
Lord Strathclyde: My Lords, does the noble Baroness recognise the following words:
"decision by the House not to support. a proposal from the government will carry more weight because it will have to include supporters from a range of political and independent opinions. So the Executive will be better held to account"?
Those words were written by the noble Baroness in he Parliamentary Monitor in November 1999 when the House of Lords Bill had become an Act. In the light of that, is not the answer to the noble Earl's Question, yes?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: No, my Lords. The answer to the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition
1222
is the same point made by my noble friend Lord Peston; namely, that the noble Lord is being illogical. There is nothing inconsistent in the statement which the noble Lord quoted, nor in my original Answer to the noble Earl.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, is it the Government's position that a Bill coming from the other place is ultimately inviolable, or is it their position that it is ultimately infallible? In her reply, will the noble Baroness take an illustration of a provision that was not promised in the manifesto, perhaps the imposition of party lists upon European elections?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, as I am sure the noble and learned Lord is well aware, that matter was subject to intensive scrutiny by this House. Ultimately the other place prevailed. However, I draw his attention to the more recent example in which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, was involved; namely, the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. in which the Government accepted amendments which originated from this House which they felt improved the Bill. That was obviously a matter of some importance. As I said in my original Answer, in each case the Government will need to decide whether it is appropriate to accept propositions from the revising Chamber.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, does the noble Baroness agree that the logic of the noble Earl's Question is simply that, if it is not right, to what constructive end and to what reasonable purpose do we continue to sit here at all?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I am rather surprised by that question. Perhaps I should simply repeat the answer that I gave to the noble Earl, Lord Russell. Without in any way seeking to say that that constitutes universally and absolutely the last word, it seems to me to reflect the position exactly. It must be for the other place to decide in each case whether to accept revisions proposed by the revising Chamber- — and, of course, on certain occasions it accepts such revisions—or compromise positions which may differ from those which it may have originally wanted. I think that that is clear.
Earl Russell: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that, in arguing that we have the right to be heard by another place but that it has an automatic right to prevail over us, she is describing exactly the position of the Social Security Advisory Committee? Does she agree that it is properly described as the Cassandra of the body politic? Has she any evidence that this House is willing to occupy such a position?
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I take once again the example of the Race Relations (Amendment) Bill. If the noble Earl regards the amendments for which he argued as being Cassandra-like, it is for him

1223
to accept that description. I described them as improving the Bill. I think that is optimistic rather than pessimistic.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is it not the case that ultimately we are saying that the representative Chamber must prevail? If the noble Earl cannot accept that, he is not accepting a basic principle of democracy.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: Yes, my Lords. Through my noble friend's question, I would draw the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, to the remarks that he made in his well-known constitutional lecture last autumn. He said that he of course accepted that the House of Lords was not going to revise the position, or take another position which moved away from the basic fact that, under our constitution, the Government are formed from the elected House of Commons, and ultimately that is the democratic responsibility of the Government.

Organophosphates
3.1 p.m.
The Countess of Marasked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their current policy on the licensing of products containing organophosphates as their active ingredient for agricultural and domestic use.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Baroness Hayman): My Lords, the Government's primary aim is the protection of human safety and the environment. All organophosphates for agricultural and domestic use are therefore tightly controlled through stringent scientific evaluation and rigorous regulatory arrangements.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Is she aware that it now transpires that there are questions about the rigorous safety checks on organophosphates? Perhaps I may ask two questions. First, if the Minister is minded to restore organophosphate sheep-dips to public sale, will she ensure that the labels contain a very clear use-by date? There are now indications that contaminants—about which I asked the noble Earl, Lord Howe, in 1993, when he held the office of Minister—are developing in stored sheep-dips. So it is very important that they are used immediately.
Secondly, do the Government propose to run any studies on the effects on children of organophosphates used in the home?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, as the noble Countess is aware, we followed the advice of the Veterinary Products Committee that organophosphate sheep-dip should be withdrawn from the market unless and until satisfactory packaging to protect from accidental
1224
spillage of concentrate could be brought forward by the manufacturers. If they succeed in providing that kind of satisfactory packaging, and the advice is to allow the product back on to the market, I shall certainly look at the issue of best before dates in terms of both the packaging and the advice to users, to ensure that users are aware that the best before dates are not only theoretical but have safety implications.
As far as concerns the issue of research into its effects on children, my understanding is that at the moment no specific research is taking place. We are planning a wide-ranging seminar on future research needs for organophosphates next month. It is possible that suggestions may be put forward then.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the Minister say what the poor sheep with sheep scab are doing while organophosphates are off the market? How are they being treated?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, knows better than I that there are alternative products in terms of injectables that cover some parasites and in terms of SP dips rather than OP dips. I recognise that both those alternative treatments have drawbacks and that there are difficulties over price. But alternative treatments are available in terms of pour-ons, dips and injectables.
Lord Rotherwick: My Lords, can the Minister say what organophosphates that are used in the home come into contact with our children? Can she say whether those items will be looked at in the very near future?
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, we should not think that, because no specific research projects are being funded by MAFF at the moment, the exposure of children to organophosphate products is not taken into account in the licensing process. It is taken into account in the licensing process, whether it is a human medicines licence for products such as malathion, which is used for head lice, or licensing of flea collars for pets. I understand that the Veterinary Products Committee has asked for extra information about the effects on users, including children, of those kinds of products. Equally, it has asked for information on pesticides—which could be insecticides—that are used in the home. It is part and parcel of the regulatory process that the effects on any users, including children, are taken into account. As I said, it is not impossible that we shall look also at proposals for specific research projects.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, does the Minister think that parents are aware, when they are using the nit lotions, that those products contain ingredients such as organophosphates? They may have read in the newspapers that organophosphates are controversial for use on sheep,

1225
yet they are knowingly using such products on their own children's hair with, as we heard, unresearched results.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, I did not say that there were unresearched results as far as concerns the use of organophosphate medicines for the treatment of head lice. The Committee on Safety of Medicines has to approve such usage, and it has to do so through a rigorous assessment of the safety process. That has been gone through. The Committee on Safety of Medicines did not suggest that there was any reason for withdrawal. It is precisely because not everyone may know every detail of what is contained in a medicine or treatment that they use that we must have robust regulatory processes in order to ensure that there are not products on the market that might be dangerous.
The Countess of Mar: My Lord, is it not the case that in domestic situations the users are untrained and uncontrolled? There is a serious danger—I have come across a number of cases—of over-use of organophosphate products, which causes damage, particularly to children. I am especially concerned about children under five, whose neurological systems are not fully developed.
Baroness Hayman: My Lords, it is right that we should be continually vigilant in this area. We have to be particularly concerned if there are possible effects on children which have not been recognised. As I said, we hope fiat the seminar that we intend to hold in March as a follow-up to the research recommendations from the COT report which was published last year will indicate some ways forward to ensure that we cover all these areas. As the noble Countess knows. a vast amount of time, energy and scientific work has gone into the assessment of these products.

Afghan Aircraft Hijack
3.8 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Taraasked Her Majesty's Government:
How many passengers on the Afghan flight hijacked to Stansted have applied for political asylum.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Bassam of Brighton): My Lords, as of 15th February, 79 passengers have applied for asylum or are dependants of those who have applied for asylum.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. Can he tell me what the Government will now do to prevent such incidents happening again? Can he further tell me what representations the Government have made to the
1226
Russian Government, which appear to be in clear contravention of international civil aviation conventions in this matter?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am not aware of the precise representations that have been made to the Russian Government. However, no doubt discussions will continue. As the noble Lord is well aware, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has made plain our distaste for the hijacking activities that took place when the aircraft was diverted to Stansted Airport. We have a very good record in this respect—as had the previous government, it should fairly be said—and we shall continue to ensure that we take the most robust measures possible to deter other people from considering such action.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, will the Minister accept that the Secretary of State has a quasi-judicial role in matters of immigration and asylum and that it was rather unfortunate for him to have made a pronouncement that those people should go back even before their applications were considered? Will he further accept that the Afghans were entitled to make an application for asylum under the present Immigration and Asylum Act and that there is a fast-track system which can determine whether or not the case is genuine? Will he accept that the asylum seekers—bar those being charged with hijacking—have done nothing wrong under the obligations of the United Nations Charter on Refugees?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I fully accept that those who have come here as an unfortunate consequence of the hijacking are entitled to make an asylum application. I cannot agree with the noble Lord's assessment of the position of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary. He has not pre-judged the claims. He has made it clear that he will act strictly in accordance with the law by considering each claim on its merits. That must be right and proper.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the recent incident shows the need for improving the quality of initial asylum decisions? Would that not greatly reduce the number of appeals and applications for judicial review? Is it not important that the first decision maker should personally see the applicant?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, the final point made by the noble Lord is an important one. Clearly, the way in which cases are reviewed will have an impact on their outcome. The Government have taken effective action by putting into law the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which will actively deter false asylum seekers but at the same time provide for a new streamlined appeals system to reduce the scope for delay by applicants pursuing multiple avenues of appeal. We believe that to be right and proper. The measures have received active and wide support from both sides of the Chamber.
Lord Boardman: My Lords, is any distinction to be made between those seeking asylum here who had no

1227
expectation of leaving their own country and those who were part of a plan hoping and expecting to arrive here?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, each asylum application must be judged on its merits. Clearly the intentions of those wishing to seek asylum will be a consideration in individual decisions. The decisions are complex, but no doubt, as the process will be speeded up, all the applications will be properly processed, as they should be.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, perhaps I may return to the question of the Russian Government. Will the Minister confirm that it was the Russian Government's responsibility under international treaty to deal with the situation when the aircraft landed in Moscow? During the hijack period, did the Government consider the option of returning the aircraft to Moscow to allow the Russians to fulfil their obligations under the treaty? Will the Minister at least undertake to write to my noble friend Lord Brabazon in response to the question of representations made to the government in Moscow, both during and since the hijack?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, it would be difficult for me to give precise answers from the Dispatch Box this afternoon to the first two questions that the noble Lord has quite understandably, rightly and properly put to me. I am happy to undertake further investigation of those points. Of course I shall be more than happy to write to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, to copy correspondence, where possible, to other noble Lords with an interest in the matter and to place a copy in the Library.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, is any channel now open to enable the Government to engage in dialogue with the Taliban administration, given that its interests are inextricably linked with heroin distribution and terrorism in Afghanistan?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, there are of course channels of communication between our Government and the Taliban government. They are important because there are important matters between the two governments. The noble Viscount makes an important point about the movement of drugs and the appalling trade in humanity that takes place, with people coming to this country falsely seeking asylum. Those two matters seem to be closely related.
Lord Geddes: My Lords, will the Minister advise what representations have been made to Her Majesty's Government from airlines using Stansted airport, Stansted being—these are my words—the designated hijack airport of the United Kingdom? Are the Government considering the use of any other airport,
1228
for example, a military airport, in order to avoid the chaos that ensued at Stansted for passengers and airlines alike?
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, obviously when major incidents of that kind take place there will be discussions with governments, particularly within the European Union. We shall continue those discussions. The noble Lord makes a valuable point and the matter will no doubt be considered.

Business of the House: Debate this Day
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the debate on the Motion in the name of the Earl Russell set down for today shall be limited to five hours. —(Baroness Jay of Paddington.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Liaison: Select Committee Report
3.15 p.m.
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Boston of Faversham): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Select Committee (HL Paper 27) be agreed to.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
Following is the report referred to:
APPOINTMENT OF A FURTHER AD HOC COMMITTEE
1. The Committee has considered what further ad hoc committee should follow the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, which reported in July 1999. We have had regard to the desirability of complementing rather than overlapping with the work of House of Commons committees. Two proposals have been made to us.
MONETARY POLICY
2. The Select Committee on the Monetary Policy, Committee of the Bank of England commented as follows in the preface to its Report (HL Paper 96, Session 1998–99):
"When the Liaison Committee recommended the establishment of this Committee it invited us to consider whether the subject matter warranted the appointment of a permanent sessional scrutiny committee. It has become clear to us during our enquiry that the time allowed for us has been sufficient only to scratch the surface of a vast and developing subject. We are mindful, in reporting to the House, that our Report can only be a mere introduction to a new policy that requires in-depth and continuing scrutiny. We beg, leave of the House to consider the reappointment of the Committee in the new session as a permanent Select Committee. Without a Committee such as ours the Monetary Policy Committee would effectively cease to be accountable to one of the two Houses of Parliament."
That proposal was supported in a paper submitted to us by Lord Peston, Chairman of the Committee.
THE IMPACT OF TUITION FEES ON STUDENT RECRUITMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION
3. Lord Rix submitted a paper to us proposing the appointment of a select committee on the impact of fees on student recruitment in higher education. He noted that the number of mature students

1229
applying for and entering higher education had fallen in 1999/2000 and suggested that a House of Lords committee could usefully seek evidence as to the nature and extent of the problem and propose means of tackling it.
RECOMMENDATION
4. Lord Rix's proposal relates to a topical subject in relation to which the House has a considerable body or expertise. On the other hand it is a subject which falls squarely within the terms of reference of the House of Commons Education and Employment Committee, and we would not wish to risk duplicating the work of that Committee.
5. We recognise the strength of the case for reappointing the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England, but we are not at this stage persuaded of the case for a permanent sessional committee on that specific subject. A more broadly based Economic Committee might represent a more effective use of resources, and we propose to consider the matter further in due course.
6. In the meantime we recommend that a further ad hoc Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England be appointed for a period of not more than a year, and we do not recommend the appointment of a committee on the impact of tees on student recruitment in higher education.
FUTURE COMMITTEE ACTIVITY
7. We have before us proposals for a range of other select committee activity in the House:
—The Government have announced proposals for Joint Committees on Human Rights and on House of Lords Reform.
—The Royal Commission on Reform of the House of Lords has made a range of proposals for committee activity, some of them not necessarily dependent on further reform of the composition of the House.
—These proposals include one for the appointment of a Constitutional Committee, supported in a submission made to us by Lord Alexander of Weedon.
—The Royal Commission specifically referred back to us a proposal made to us a year ago by Lord Lester of Herne Hill for a committee to scrutinise treaties. We have postponed further examination of the proposal because the House of Commons Procedure Committee has just begun a short inquiry into Parliamentary scrutiny of treaties.
—There are likely to be further proposals for the pre-legislative scrutiny of draft bills.
8. The implementation of all these proposals would have longterm implications for the resources of the House - members to serve, staff to support them, accommodation for the committees and their staff, and expenditure on the House of Lords Vote.
9. We propose, therefore, to undertake at our next meeting a general review of the House's committee activity, on the basis of a paper to be prepared for us by the Clerk of the Parliaments.
Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe: My Lords, a number of projected changes are outlined in the report. Paragraph 8 states that,
"The implementation of all these proposals would have long-term implications for the resources of the House—members to serve, staff to support them, accommodation for the committees and their staff, and expenditure on the House of Lords Vote".
The committees will no doubt serve a useful function, but they are only one of a number of substantial changes currently taking place in your Lordships' House. All those changes will involve increasing expenditure. I wonder whether it is not time that the Chairman of Committees organised his relevant supporters in committees to have a look at the entire expenditure of the House.
1230
I have in the past drawn attention to what I regard as extravagances—among others, the resurfacing of the car park at the front of the building at a cost of £2.5 million when no one can see anything wrong with it. We are in a position where we are committed to expenditure without ever going back to look at it to see whether there are not some compensatory savings in the great changes which are to take place in the way in which the House operates.
I ask the Chairman of Committees to consider the matter extremely seriously. We know what happens to such reports: once this report is approved, as it will be today, in future when a noble Lord challenges any aspect of it he will be told that the House has already approved it. The implications of more expenditure should be faced up to and we should be looking for compensatory savings elsewhere; otherwise, we shall be told, "You say that you have made yourselves more democratic, more legitimate and so forth, but look at the cost of it". There will be people in tabloid papers and so on who would like to make a great meal of that point.
Lord Barnett: My Lords, I welcome paragraph 6 of the report, where the House authorities—if I may put it that way—have accepted and recommended that the Select Committee on the Bank of England should be set up again. Perhaps I may first ask the Chairman of Committees why it has taken until now to do it, when it was quite clear that all sides of your Lordships' House, as long ago as November, had agreed that that should be done?
Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, I am concerned about the implications referred to in paragraph 8, which I believe are more serious than the points raised by my noble friend. The commit tee seems to have the matter the wrong way round. It is important for your Lordships to decide which Select Committees are required and then to decide the necessary resources. One should bear in mind that the House spends far less than another place on important matters, such as Select Committees. That is the way that it should be done.
When the general review referred to in paragraph 9 is considered on the basis of a report by the Clerk of the Parliaments, I ask the Chairman of Committees to ensure that the Clerk be clearly instructed that his report should be purely factual. I also ask that your Lordships' House decide which Select Committees are required in future on the basis of a report from the committee, and then decide on and find the resources available.
Lord Jenkin of Roding: My Lords, I share the pleasure of the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, about paragraph 6 of the report, but only on the basis that half a loaf is, I suppose, better than a full one. I am sorry: a full loaf would be better than a half. This concerns one of the Government's major changes of policy. It is now common ground between all parties that the Monetary Policy Committee is the body that will determine the control of interest rates in the country. This is a long-term institutional change which will need to be kept under regular scrutiny.

1231
It has been said before—indeed, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House acknowledged it when I raised the point on a previous occasion—that there is a great deal of expertise in your Lordships' House on the matters which fall within the purview of the Monetary Policy Committee. I find it astonishing that even now the Liaison Committee cannot see its way to establishing the Select Committee as a permanent part of the machinery of the House. Can the Chairman of Committees say whether this is just pending the consideration of the matters referred to in paragraphs 7 and 8, or are we going to have, as it were, a curious procedure whereby the Select Committee on the Monetary Policy Committee will be reappointed every year as a one-off? I would regard that as a very unsatisfactory way of approaching what is an important function of the House.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Cocks of Hartcliffe, asked about paragraph 8 and related expenditure. Perhaps I may say, in answer both to him and to the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, who asked a question on a related point, that the principle on which the Liaison Committee, your Lordships' House and the Clerk of the Parliaments have proceeded in the past is that the first and most important consideration is the requirements of the House. It has been understood that if the House requires something to be done, steps will be taken to see that it can be done. But I have to say—I hope with the approval of your Lordships—that there are certain considerations dependent on that.
First, the provision has to be made for any additional expenditure required to implement those proposals. Secondly, in providing for, for example, staff resources, there has to be time in order for any additional staff required to be appointed. We have always benefited in your Lordships' House from the high quality of our staff. One cannot necessarily recruit overnight additional members of staff of the high quality that we require. It takes a certain amount of time. Those are the two major restraints—the provision of money and the provision of staff—which clearly need to be satisfied before we can proceed. But the underlying principle—the noble Lord who made this point is quite right—is that the House decides what it would like to see implemented.
The second point concerns the amount of time which has elapsed since the last ad hoc committee on monetary policy reported. That point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Barnett, and touched on the by the noble Lord, Lord Jenkin of Roding. It was thought that it would be right for the Liaison Committee, in considering the proposal to reappoint the Monetary Policy Committee either on an ad hoc basis or on a permanent basis, to be in a position at least to give interim consideration to any relevant proposals which were made by the Royal Commission on the House of Lords. As one member of the Liaison Committee, I can say that that seems to be a prudent course to have taken. The committee itself therefore gave some preliminary consideration to those proposals, as your Lordships will have seen from the report.
1232
So far as concerns the future of any committee on monetary policy or a rather wider one, I simply point out that consideration was given to that matter at the meeting of the Liaison Committee and it appears in the report. Whether or not a recommendation is to be made to your Lordships in due course after the next Liaison Committee meeting—a recommendation, say, for the Monetary Policy Committee to be appointed on a permanent basis, or on a further ad hoc basis, or on a rather wider basis whereby it would be transformed into a wider economic committee—remains to be considered. It will be considered at the next meeting of the Liaison Committee. There was a good deal of sympathy for the idea that the Monetary Policy Committee should be continued, as can be seen from the report. There was, however, quite a strong body of opinion within the committee that the terms of reference of such a committee should be broadened in the way indicated. Some of the points made today are among the very ones which the Liaison Committee will consider when it returns to this matter at its meeting. Its next meeting will not be very long in coming.
I hope that those points have done something to meet the concerns raised by noble Lords who have spoken. I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lords, Lord Barnett and Lord Jenkin of Roding, for their thanks to the Liaison Committee. I shall certainly see to it that their thanks are passed on.
Lord Peston: My Lords, will the noble Lord use his good offices in a particular way? He has been very reassuring in saying that it is his view that the wishes of your Lordships' House should dominate decisions in these matters. However, I am sure he is aware that one of our problems is that we normally deal with the reports of the Liaison Committee and other committees immediately after Questions when all the pressure on us is, first, not to get up and, secondly, not to speak at any length. I feel that pressure on me at this very moment. Will the noble Lord at least use his very strong position of authority to speak to the usual channels and say that at some point we would not mind a debate on precisely what he says; namely, what it is that your Lordships would like to see done about committees and other related matters, including expenditure? If we had a fair amount of time, we could have a very constructive debate. But we never do have any time because everyone wants to get on with the next debate.
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I cannot, of course, speak for the usual channels. They will have heard what the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has had to say. I must confess, however, that on a number of occasions in the past I have not noticed any marked reticence on the part of certain of your Lordships. Indeed, I have been either the beneficiary or the victim of prolonged debates on some of these reports.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

The Rowntree Report
3.29 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to call attention to the Rowntree report on poverty and social exclusion, and to measures needed to reduce them; and to move for Papers.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, perhaps I may reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peston, before he departs that I was not exhibiting the least impatience at his question. He has every right to request that business be in the proper place on the Order Paper and I am glad that he did so.
Noble Lords: He is not in his place.
Earl Russell: No doubt someone will convey my remarks to the noble Lord.
The previous Rowntree report on this topic was debated in this House on St David's Day 1995 on a Motion moved from the Opposition Benches, then occupied by the Labour Party, by the noble Lord, Lord Eatwell. It was a very good debate. I hope that it may do the same today. I am delighted by the range of speakers taking part in today's debate and I look forward to hearing their contributions.
On the previous occasion, I referred to the report as describing an economy that did not bat below number seven. I am slightly disappointed to say that I see no reason to revise that description when dealing with the new report, even though I speak in what is, internationally as well as nationally, a comparatively benign economic climate.
If we take the Government's preferred poverty measure—those who are on below half average income—the graph is "flat". All through the period, the number affected is between 13 and 14 million. That is a considerable number of people. However, if we look slightly lower down at the much more interesting figure for those on below 40 per cent of average income, we see that during the period since 1995, before housing costs are taken into account, it has risen from 4.3 to 5 million. And after housing costs are taken into account, the rise is from 7.3 to 8.4 million. That is the waterline of the iceberg. It is as low as the statistics before the House enable us to see.
I confess to a certain curiosity as to the dimensions of the lower portions of the iceberg. What proportions of people are on below 20 per cent of average income, below 10 per cent, or even, in some cases, below 5 per cent? Those kinds of figures are a great deal harder to discover than I should have wished.
The figures in the report are part of a worldwide trend towards rising inequality, which is part of the way in which the global free market appears to be developing. So some of the causes are clearly international and not merely the responsibility of a British government of whatever political colour. However, the trend towards an increase in relative inequality has been going faster in the United Kingdom than anywhere else in the developed world save New Zealand.
1234
We on these Benches believe that the trend has gone too far and that it is time it was put into reverse. We believe that for reasons of common humanity, for reasons of social justice, and for reasons of consent and social cohesion. In its day, the classic free market theory of Samuel Smiles involved the view that those who did well were being rewarded for hard work, skill and persistence. However, there have been several times in my life when I have made more money simply by occupying a London house doing nothing than I could ever do in what is not a badly paid job. I find it difficult to see the social justice in that.
I am reminded of the pirate who was arrested by Alexander the Great and sentenced to death. He replied, "Because you do it with a great army and a great fleet, you are called a great emperor; because I do it with one ship, I am called a mean and contemptible pirate." When we consider the problem of fraud on social security, we may wonder whether some of the people with whom we are dealing may possibly reason in that way, and indeed whether they might occasionally have a little excuse if they do.
Most of all, I am concerned about the trend towards rising inequality for reasons of economic competitiveness. That may possibly surprise some noble Lords. We are used to thinking of economic competitiveness as consisting simply of cheapness— cheapness of price to the purchaser and cheapness of the overall social security bill to the taxpayer. It is true that those are indices of competitiveness, and strong ones when taken in isolation. But nothing does happen in isolation in this world. Competition happens in other ways as well, which may sometimes point in other directions.
We have an interest, for example, in having a supply of labour consisting of members of a fit and healthy potential workforce. My noble friend Lord Clement-Jones, whose province this is, will be discussing the problem of poverty and ill health. I look forward very much to hearing his remarks. We have an interest in having an orderly and safe environment. The consequences of real poverty for the budget of the police and prisons and people's overall sense of safety can be serious. Let us think only of the conditions in the more insalubrious parts of Rio de Janeiro. They are clearly a drag on Brazil's economic problems. Labour is one of the raw materials of business. Like other raw materials, if not safely warehoused when in use, it deteriorates. That is an extremely expensive process.
The problem of real, deep poverty is being missed by the concentration in the Government's audit of poverty on those below 50 per cent of average income. It encourages them to lift off the top, if I may so put it—the richest of the poor—and leave the rest alone. The reality is that the worst damage done by poverty is likely to be to those at the bottom of the poverty scale, not at the top of it.
There are two problems: one of relative inequality; the other of absolute poverty. For absolute poverty, we can well take as a working definition that used in the Acheson report; namely, having insufficient

1235
money to buy items and services necessary to good health. I shall not debate whether absolute poverty or relative inequality is the more important to put right. The question I want to address is: which is the more urgent? If you are involved in a train crash, it is not easy to decide whether it is more important to rescue the victims or to investigate the signals. It is apples and oranges. But it is perfectly clear which is the more urgent.
So I wish that the Government were doing more than they are to address the question of absolute poverty. I wish they were doing more to mend the holes that existed in the safety net at the time they came into office. There are whole categories of people—16 and 17 year-olds and asylum seekers, for example—who are disentitled to benefit. There is the problem of penal disentitlement to benefit as under the "actively seeking work" rules, the benefit penalties under the CSA, and, it is now proposed, for breach of community service orders.
There are two perfectly valid moral principles in this issue. Both are recognised as valid throughout these Benches. One is that people should not be paid benefits for doing nothing; the other is that we should not reduce people to total destitution such as we should not even inflict on prisoners. Which of those principles should take priority in any particular case can properly be referred to evidence. So we want to see, before we approve any more measures of disentitlement to benefit, real, genuine research on what actually happens to people who are totally disentitled to benefit and how they make their living.
There are also cases where the benefits system malfunctions. The Minister will recall giving a helpful Answer to me regarding DETR and DSS research on housing benefit. There are large numbers of people whose benefit fails to meet their rent, sometimes by as much as £50 a week. Many of those have taken to borrowing. It is a matter of regret to me, as it has been for a long time, that the DSS does no research on the level of debt among those on social security benefit. It is missing some cases of quite severe hardship. As the Minister well knows, the number of deaths from hypothermia is higher in this country than anywhere else in the EU, even including Sweden and Finland.
My noble friend Lord Ezra, whose province this is, will speak about fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. I look forward to what he says with great interest.
We have a very high level of teenage suicides. The reduction in the number is a health target. The absolute number has gone down but the percentage of the age group has not. I should like to know what percentage of those teenagers who committed suicide were without visible means of support at the time they did it. I tabled a Question for Written Answer a few weeks ago and the Minister told me that the information was not available. There is a lack of curiousness in this area and some defect in government records.
The Minister will recall that I asked another Question; namely, how many 16 and 17 year-olds without work, training or education and living
1236
independently were without any source of income. The Minister told me that there were none, whereas both the Rowntree report and the report of the Children's Society, which is still running, are aware of considerable numbers of such cases. I believe that what the Minister tells me is that such cases do not appear in government records, which are defective, rather than that it does not happen. If the noble Baroness refers back to her Written Answers to me since the beginning of January she will see that pattern repeated a good many times.
We must also think quite hard about the problem of benefit levels, especially in the light of the findings of the Acheson report that they are insufficient to maintain good health. We touched on this matter last night when debating the Social Security Benefits Up-rating Order. It was agreed, without advocating going back to linking benefits to earnings, that if one does not do so from time to time one has to uprate above prices as resources allow to avoid the development of rapidly increasing inequality. We believe that resources would allow for that this year. I do not know why the Government do not do it.
There is evidence, of which I hope we shall hear more in the debate, of significant food poverty. In parts of this country mortality is 10 per cent above the average. A great many cases occur in areas of London, including I am interested to note, the London Borough of Islington. These are pockets of poverty. There is severe poverty among pensioners, as the Minister will concede, for which the Government offer only 75p and the minimum income guarantee. I do not have quite as much faith in the minimum income guarantee, except as a device in debates, as Ministers do. If the Minister can give me any reason to change my mind about that, I shall listen with very great care and attention.
At the same time, the Government pay far less attention than they might to the real barriers to employment; for example, age discrimination. This applies to both youth and age. Eighteen per cent of males under 25 are unemployed. That is a statistic that should worry us when looking at the funding of pensions as well as the present state of youth. Anyone over the age of 45 who loses a job has a very poor chance of returning to employment. My noble friend Lady Barker, whose province this is, will speak to that, and I very much look forward to hearing her.
Perhaps one of the worst barriers to employment is race. I have just quoted the figure for young male unemployment, which is 18 per cent. The figure for black young males under 25 is 51 per cent nation-wide and 62 per cent in London. We should be ashamed of that figure. When I observe that young black males are seven times more likely to be in prison than young white males, I am tempted to entertain the hypothesis that those two figures are connected. The prison budget is about as expensive a substitute for social security as we could pick.
In rural areas in particular probably the biggest barrier to employment is transport. In Falmouth and Camborne, to take just one example among many, people on income support—which in normal times is

1237
hard enough to live on—attempt to continue to run cars because as soon as they sell them they become unemployable. This suggests that savings on rural transport may turn out to be exceedingly expensive in the long run. Two of my noble friends will speak to that point, my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, from a general rural point of view, and my noble friend Lord Bradshaw from the point of view of a general transport specialist. These points need more attention than any government have yet given them.
Some actions that have been taken by the Government are good. We welcome the increases in child benefit and the minimum wage. We would welcome them even more if the Government committed themselves to regular uprating. But I am perturbed by the way that the Government tend, in their language, to denigrate social security benefits. In replying to the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, on the subject of benefit levels during Committee stage of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill, the Minister accused him of poverty of aspiration. I have checked the quotation and I can show it to the noble Baroness later. On 18th July the Secretary of State, speaking in Newham, said that,
"a giro can't get you a job, or improve your skills or prospects. That's why we're reforming the benefit system".
I regard that as a non sequitur. It is not the purpose of the benefits system to create jobs but to keep people fit and well until there are jobs to which they can return. If the Minister disagrees I look forward with great interest to finding out why. I have never had a coherent explanation of it, and perhaps I am about to get one.
In a Written Answer about the cost of restoring benefit to 16 and 17 year-olds, the Minister treated me to the following homily, which incidentally was not part of the Question:
"We believe that every young person should have the opportunity to achieve their potential. That is why our aim is to engage 16 and 17 year-olds in education, training or work with training, rather than ;carting their adult lives dependent on the benefits system".—[official Report, 11/1/00; col. WA 113]
I take exception to the words "rather than" in that response. Like the Children's Society, we believe that people without benefits tend to adopt what are called risky survival strategies which may severely hamper their prospects of returning to the labour force. We believe that benefits should be seen as a springboard to returning to the labour market rather than as an obstacle to it, and that the denigration of benefits is thoroughly unhelpful and, at its worst, potentially Clintonian. Above all, this is a problem in particular areas that are left behind like rock pools by the retreating tide. I refer to areas which are being stripped of services and facilities. As one of the members of our working group, a councillor from Meadow Well, Newcastle, said:
"Disadvantages tend to hunt in packs".
We are entering into a competition between rural and urban poverty. What strikes me is how much the problem is the same: the closure of the corner shop, the post office, the bank, the benefits office, the hospital,
1238
the magistrates' court, the police station and perhaps the school. One after another the things that make an area live are closed down.
We cannot all live literally in Middle England on the M.4 corridor. The Deputy Prime Minister knows what the problems are. We need to do something to get the people, houses and jobs in the same places. In that context the failure to provide matching funds for objective work is a serious mistake; and that, rather than tinkering with the benefits system to make it more unattractive, is the area where we should be looking for a solution. My Lords, I beg to move for Papers.
3.50 p.m.
Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, the numbers and range of noble Lords who have put down their names to speak today are ample evidence of how grateful the House is to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity to debate this important topic today. It is a privilege to be the first to thank him.
We are especially grateful to the noble Earl because many of us remember the not too distant past when we were not encouraged to discuss such a topic. We were especially not encouraged to make the connections— many of us know from our work outside the House that they are inescapable—between poverty and poor health, poverty and under-achievement in education, poverty and crime, and poverty and mental illness and family breakdown.
We now not only understand the significance of those connections; we are encouraged to address them. I cannot speak in a debate such as this without acknowledging the commitment of this Government to tackling poverty and working towards the ambitious target of cutting by half in 10 years the number of poor children in our society, currently estimated at 4 million; and ensuring that in 20 years no child lives in a poor household.
We can debate—no doubt we shall—whether that is a reasonable and achievable aim, or whether we should expect that the poor will always be with us. However, in my limited time today I want to focus on the second part of the Motion: on measures needed to reduce poverty and social exclusion. The noble Earl set out clearly some large-scale and extremely significant measures which he believes are necessary. I want to focus on much smaller-scale developments which are already under way, and to talk about some of the practical ways in which lottery money is being used through the New Opportunities Fund, which I chair, to address some aspects of social exclusion and to make a real difference to disadvantaged individuals and communities in the areas of health education and the environment.
I take first education. Sustainable policy for abolishing child poverty could not possibly be based only on paying more generous benefits, vitally important though those are. The strategy has also to increase the number of parents in work or at least to reduce the time they spend out of work. Clearly the New Deal, the minimum wage, and the working families' tax credit—I am sure many noble Lords will

1239
mention those—are vital parts of this strategy. But the New Opportunities Fund is also working to making an important contribution through our out of school hours childcare and our out of school hours learning initiatives.
Our childcare initiative, which aims to create more than 800,000 new childcare places, has thus far spent £17 million, almost all of it in disadvantaged areas, on schemes which create such activities as breakfast clubs, after-school places and holiday places which will enable parents to take advantage of the work opportunities on offer, secure in the knowledge that their children are well cared for.
Our out of school hours learning activities, on which we have thus far spent £27 million, include schemes like the one in the north-west where £0.75 million will benefit children in 38 schools in the Trafford area with holiday activity schemes, after-school sports, and cultural activities. In the north-east we spent £320,000 on setting up a study support system in 16 schools to enable children from socially deprived areas, who perhaps do not have the opportunity at home, to do their homework; and other forms of study to develop self confidence and improve their ability to learn.
Nor are all the education initiatives confined to the younger age groups. Our community access to lifelong learning initiative aims to encourage adults into learning with a particular emphasis on improving access to learning opportunities through information and communications technology. The evidence shows that the better off in society have greater access to the new technologies. There is a danger that we shall create a split between the information "haves" and "have-nots". The sum of £200 million of New Opportunities Fund money will help to minimise that split.
As regards health, the connection between poverty and poor health is well established. So our healthy living centre initiative aims to develop a network of healthy living centres across the United Kingdom which within five years will be accessible to 20 per cent of the most disadvantaged people in society. We have £300 million for that initiative; and healthy living centres will address important factors such as social exclusion, mental health, and poor access to services. They can include community cafes, exercise, counselling training classes, credit unions and health promotion activities.
Our cancer initiative has included purchasing diagnostic equipment for areas which are disadvantaged and a "living with cancer" initiative which is predominantly targeted at black and minority ethnic communities, and those which are socially and economically deprived. Many of us who live in areas where there is a well developed voluntary sector have benefited from local fundraising activities for such equipment and services. Again, the New Opportunities Fund aims to redress that balance for the poorest in society.
1240
In the environment, too, we are working to make a difference. Why should poor communities have less access to green spaces and playing fields, or fewer safe areas for children to play in? The sum of £125 million will go to projects which help to develop such access.
I make no apology for the use of lottery money to target directly the needs of disadvantaged and socially excluded people for the purposes of this debate. Ask any average person buying his lottery ticket on a Saturday and that is what he says he wants the money spent on. Moreover, there is some evidence that previous types of lottery distribution have been unfairly skewed towards the "haves" in society because those areas are more likely to get their act together to make an adequate application. Again, the New Opportunities Fund is working in a different kind of arena.
All our initiatives are strictly evaluated to assess the impact they have on social exclusion agendas. We are willing to experiment, to break new ground. Therefore, I expect that not all the projects will fulfil expectations. Overall, I am confident that this initiative and the New Opportunities Fund idea will be clear evidence that a difference can be made and that socially excluded individuals and communities can be given new opportunities.
I emphasise that the money spent by the fund is strictly additional to, and not a substitute for, statutory funding. We may have £2 billion to spend, but that is marginal money when addressing the needs of the nation. None the less, by addressing the needs of those who are most disadvantaged in society, by encouraging community participation, and by complementing local and national strategies and programmes, I believe that we can make a difference to the quality of life for some of those people. The key point is that we must all be working together—government at national and local level, charities, the private sector, and local communities—to address the major problems of poverty which we shall no doubt highlight in our debate today. No one would doubt that there is a long way to go, but neither should anyone doubt that we have made a start.
3.58 p.m.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this debate in such a serious, sensitive and thoughtful way—the style to which this House has become accustomed. Unlike the noble Earl, I cannot speak on all aspects of the report. I hope that the House will forgive me if many of my comments concentrate on the rural perspective, although all the comments apply to rural and urban aspects of daily living.
I believe that in the early days social exclusion was assumed to be urban centred. An attempt to define it was based on mean streets, a lifetime of unemployment, violence, brutality, illiteracy and the many other Dickensian story-lines about which we know so much. It has now been recognised that social exclusion also affects people living in the countryside.

1241
The Cabinet Office report Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in the Countryside, published earlier this month, testifies to that.
I have studied the Cabinet Office report and the Rowntree report and wish to draw your Lordships' attention to a number of implicit assumptions with which I am not comfortable. The Prime Minister, during his recent visit to South Wales, used some of these to publicise recent results from surveys that underpin the Cabinet report. Paramount among these was that 71 per cent of the respondents believe that the quality of life is better in the countryside than elsewhere. A breakdown of what this meant found that 68 per cent of the rural sample considered that their own area has a lot of community spirit compared with 43 per cent who felt that within the urban setting.
These figures hide trends that are somewhat alarming and do not bode well for the continued appreciation of rural lifestyles. The people who work and provide the community spirit anywhere are those who are willing to work and to care for others without thought of reward for themselves. In to this category come the neighbour who every day collects a newspaper for an elderly person, and then, most importantly, stays for a chat; those who serve on the parish council; these who visit the sick; those who shop for the housebound; and so on. We all know of them, whether in the city or in the countryside. All the evidence is that in rural areas the average age of those volunteers is rapidly increasing and that their numbers are fewer.
One reason for that is that younger people of both sexes now go out I o work to earn money and are often out of the community for eight to 10 hours during Monday to Friday. Another reason is that more four-bedroom and five-bedroom houses are built in the countryside, barns are converted, or two cottages are knocked together, and the buyers come from urban areas. They move house, but they do not leave their work or necessarily the school; nor do they change their interests. Such people may well spend 10 hours of each day away from the rural area. They simply do not have the time to do things for others in the vicinity of their own homes. These people can see the community spirit at work and they genuinely value it. What they do not see is that they need to contribute to it for it to be there in the future.
To make things worse, the foundations of the rural way of life are being eroded. I have read recently in the book Devil's Advocate by John Humphreys the passage where he states that Sir Donald Acheson said that it is now impossible for many of the poorest people in this country to get cheap varied food because the local shops are shutting while supermarkets move out of town. He also says that while the number of food superstores rose from 432 in 1986 to 1,034 in 1996, the number of small grocery shops fell by 50,000 in that same period. The closure of small shops applies as much to villages as to the inner cities.
Agriculture has been responsible for our basic food requirements and for much of the shaping and upkeep of our countryside. Agriculture has had to bear the
1242
costs of new hygiene practices in our abattoirs, of the animal welfare rules introduced by successive governments and of the consequences of problems such as BSE and bovine TB. I know that some will say that there is compensation. There is, but it covers only the bare minimum and not the knock-on effects of many of these problems.
The principal result is that farm incomes have fallen heavily since 1997. They have fallen from an average of £18,000-plus in 1996 to a mere £4,500 in 1999. During his farm visit to the south-west, the Prime Minister was shown accounts from one farm that revealed that the farmer's pay last year amounted to 33 pence per hour, somewhat below the average minimum wage.
Farmers are going out of business and, of those who remain, many have stopped investing further in their businesses. This, in turn, renders them less competitive, which means that their share of the market drops, which means that their income drops, and so on, as we know. Even more importantly, as their income falls so their share of the national cake falls. Various researchers, writers of reports, devisers of policy start saying that they are of diminishing importance because they already account for less than X per cent of national income. Even so, they receive a smaller share of government support, become less competitive and their incomes fall further. At page 32 of the Cabinet Office report this is illustrated well. Primary sector farming now contributes only one per cent of total UK GDP. Agriculture employs over half a million people and is the mainstay of the food chain, contributing approximately £55 billion—about nine per cent—of UK GDP.
At some point every year, including this last year, some 20,000 people decide to leave farming earlier than they had planned to. Many of them do so with little or no money, no pensions or nest eggs. Tenant farmers are the most vulnerable. These are the very people who have been at the centre of their village communities and supporters of those important aspects of community life which others seek.
Will the Minister tell us how many ex-farmers under 50 years of age, and how many over 50, have been successfully retrained for life and for a job in an urban environment?
In case anyone thinks that my vision might he blinkered, I turn to the Rowntree report and to the startling discovery on page 12 that the number of people with less than 40 per cent of average income, who are the very poorest, is rising and 10 per cent of all those households have an income of £ 132 per week or less. It is pointed out further on in the report at page 79 that one-fifth of the poorest households do not have any type of bank or building society account.
Will the Minister explain how these households are to receive benefits when the Government have arranged for electronic transfer of funds directly into said non-existent banks and building societies, and perhaps post offices?

1243
I have also looked at the figures on incomes generally. I find that 29.1 per cent of the rural population is over pensionable age compared with only 18.2 per cent in the urban areas. Agricultural workers are not noted for amassing large pension funds. It is a fair bet that the pension income for those who have lived and worked in the countryside mirrors that from earnings. Most of the rural areas return lower average incomes than their regional urban counterparts.
Concern is being expressed not only by people who live in rural areas but also by those who represent them at local government level. Last September the Rural Services Partnership called for a rural task force and asked for a joined up approach to rural poverty, public services and employment. Local government spending in rural areas is £716 per head compared with £1,208 in urban areas.
I am surprised that the Rowntree report does not have any figures on empty houses, though it does note on page 85 that the number of households in temporary accommodation, which fell steadily from 1992 to 1997, rose sharply again in 1998 and 1999. This implies that, once again, there is a need for landlords of all types to renovate their stock. In that context, can the Minister confirm the newspaper reports of yesterday that the Government propose to reduce or eliminate VAT on repair work and levy it on new build? Can the Minister also tell us how many houses owned by local government are currently empty and what proportion could be brought back into the market-place were they renovated?
My allocated time is almost at an end. I should draw your Lordships' attention to a worrying report in today's newspaper that Blair's poverty policy is in chaos. I am sure that the Minister will know of it. A damning Cabinet Office report to be published today concludes that a multi-million pound drive to improve Britain's most deprived areas is descending into chaos because there is too little co-ordination between departments. At a time when every penny is needed to help those in greatest need, surely we can get our act together.
4.10 p.m.
The Countess of Mar: My Lords, we all know of and respect the expertise of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in this field and I am grateful to him for drawing the Rowntree report to our attention today. I intend to concentrate upon a group of individuals who are spread across the whole age range of this report. They are men, women and children who are suffering from what are categorised as illnesses with "ill-defined symptoms". Among them are CFS/ME, multiple chemical sensitivity, Gulf War illnesses, fibromyalgia, sheep dip poisoning and irritable bowel syndrome. The severity of their symptoms fluctuates from day to day.
I have spoken about the predicament of these people on many occasions in your Lordships' House but never in this context. Prevailing medical opinion has it
1244
that their illnesses are the result of "functional somatisation". As I understand it, this definition may be loosely translated in this way: these patients have a personality defect that leads them to complain of physical symptoms in order to obtain sympathy and attention. Prevailing medical advice is that once known causal factors for the symptoms are eliminated, there is no point in doing further clinical investigation. Some leading psychiatrists are of the opinion that the best way to treat patients is with antidepressants, cognitive behaviour therapy and, in the case of CFS/ME patients, graded exercise.
There is very little sound evidence that this regime is effective. In fact, it has been criticised severely by researchers outside the UK. Patients who attempt and fail in this regime or who, having heard of its unfavourable results and refuse treatment, are effectively branded as frauds. As a result, they are all too frequently stigmatised and become socially excluded.
I am not aware of any UK studies that have looked at the quality of life of people with CFS/ME. I do have papers relating to one study from the USA and another from Australia. The American paper found that:
"Over-all scores on the quality of life index were significantly lower in CFS than for other chronic illness groups";
and that:
"The findings suggest that the quality of life is particularly and uniquely disrupted in CFS".
In the Australian paper the researchers found:
"Results from both the SIP [Sickness Impact Profile] and the interview revealed that CFS subjects had significantly impaired quality of life, especially in areas of social functioning. These findings highlight the importance of addressing the social isolation and loss of role functioning experienced by CFS sufferers".
My extensive contacts with sufferers from all the illnesses I have mentioned gives me the distinct impression that CFS sufferers are not alone in their plight. As successive Ministers for the Department of Health and the noble Baroness the Minister know only too well, for they have to respond to some of my letters, there are many in the community who are deprived of treatment, social services support and social security benefits. These people are not whingers and spongers. Many are seriously ill. The Australian study found that:
"Forty-six of 47 patients diagnosed with CFS were classified as having severe illness impairment. independent of their age. sex, education level or length of their illness. It is noteworthy that this degree of impairment, as reflected by overall SIP scores, is more extreme than the over-all impairment reported by patients with untreated hyperthyroidism, end-stage renal disease and heart disease … it is also more extreme than the over-all levels of impairment reported by a comparable group of MS sufferers".
Let us not forget that between the two world wars MS sufferers were branded as suffering from a lazy man syndrome.
The American study of 110 subjects found that:
"All participants related profound and multiple losses, including loss of jobs, relationships, financial security, future plans, daily routines, hobbies, stamina and spontaneity, and even their sense of self because of CFS".

1245
I have a large folder of case histories. Patients, parents and doctors write to me in a desperate attempt to obtain recognition and help. They ask what they must do to obtain funding for treatment outside the NHS when they know from experience that the treatment works, but they have exhausted their private funds or their health authority or GP has withdrawn funding.
I had just such a letter today. This lady has been a patient at the Breakspear Hospital for 20 years. She suffers food and chemical sensitivities and is acutely sensitive to drugs The treatment has enabled her to function socially and in the home. For seven years West Sussex Health Authority paid £2,000 a year towards her treatment costs, which amount to about £5,000. The balance she has found herself. Despite the support she has from her GP, the health authority has now withdrawn its support, citing among other factors a shortfall in its finances.
Over the years she has been referred to innumerable consultants who, her GP states, "have failed to help her in any way". He has reminded the health authority that the effects of her illness mean that, without treatment, she is a suicide risk. I shall be writing to the Minister's noble friend about this.
The noble Earl spoke about suicides and we know that the suicide rate among farmers is extremely high. There is anecdotal evidence of many suicides among ME sufferers and Gulf War veterans. Are there statistics which link the illness of the patient prior to the suicide with the actual suicide? I know that suicides are listed by occupation, but I wonder whether there is any other information about them.
The noble Baroness may recall that I have written to her on many occasions about social security clients who are made to travel long distances to attend Benefit Agency offices, medical examinations and appeal tribunals. Even after going through all the hoops at great personal financial and physical cost, these people are deprived of their benefits and are told that they must seek employment. What employer would even consider taking on a person who does not know from one day to the next how much he will be able to do? I have also written to the noble Baroness about Gulf War veterans who are having difficulty with their war pensions and other social security benefits.
While I know that the noble Baroness is a kind and sympathetic person and that she tries to be as helpful as possible, I have now stopped being surprised by the chilly responses I receive. Her colleagues in the Department of Health are aware that there are parents who are being accused of exhibiting Munchausen's syndrome by proxy because they refuse to force their children to undergo the recommended regime; that these children are placed on the "at risk" register; made wards of court and forced to undergo what is, to my mind, a barbaric course of cognitive behaviour therapy and exercise. She must know of the children who are isolated at home, missing out on their schooling and contact with friends because their illness is not recognised.
1246
Fortunately, there are some medical practitioners and researchers who are not, to use current language, "on message". They are conducting in-depth clinical examinations of patients who present with multiple symptoms. They are finding organic causes for those symptoms. Some are finding clear causal relationships between exposure to a variety of chemical and biological toxins and the development of illness. Others are successfully treating patients with a variety of complementary medical procedures. Unfortunately, too often they are either ignored or denigrated by those who prefer the "quick fix" of a psychiatric diagnosis. It seems that nobody will listen to them or to their patients.
Despite the assurances given by the director of the Benefits Agency Medical Services that all their doctors are trained to recognise these illnesses and that they are aware of the fluctuating nature of the symptoms, it is clear that some of these doctors are not following the guidelines. As a result, sick individuals find that they are not believed by relatives and friends or by their GPs. They struggle to exist in a social vacuum on minimal incomes and little, if any, medical support.
While I am aware that there is a task force in the Department of Health looking at ME/CFS, I ask the Minister to recognise the plight of all the men, women and children who fall victim to these illnesses and to work with her colleagues, to listen to, and actually hear, the sufferers and their professional carers and to examine all the means of lifting from them the stigma of social exclusion.
I speak from the heart. Noble Lords will know that I suffer from organophosphate poisoning. I spent two years being socially excluded. Fortunately, I have good friends and other helpful people. I have been treated and have recovered. I believe that I am now making a useful contribution to society. There are hundreds of people in the world who could make a similar contribution and I ask the noble Baroness to listen.
4.18 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Durham: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for giving us the opportunity of addressing the persistent evils of poverty and social exclusion in our society. Few of us can match his style, but we all share his passion. Indeed, the speech we have just heard from the noble Countess, Lady Mar, came from the heart and touched us all.
We want to eradicate from our society poverty, social exclusion and all that they mean. I hope very much that that will help us to rise above any party differences because we shall only tackle these problems as a nation, knowing what evils they represent in our midst.
The factors of social exclusion are those which I encounter many times a week during my work in the north-east. Only last Sunday night, I helped to inaugurate an imaginative regeneration scheme in Pallion, one of the worst hit areas which suffered as a result of the closure of the Wearside dockyards. For a

1247
decade, Pallion has exhibited all the facets of a forgotten area which are itemised in the Rowntree report. Now, however, thanks to a £10 million grant from the fifth phase of the Social Regeneration Project, hope is beginning to return. Through the partnership of Sunderland City Council, the police and the social agencies and, indeed, the voluntary agencies, the local people are becoming involved in a number of projects which will help to make Pallion once again a hospitable place in which to live.
In particular, I commend an initiative undertaken by the local police, who have taken a room in the local school as a kind of mini police station. It is not a part of the school, but because they are there it is breeding confidence and a sense of security for the mothers who come to the school gate and for many of the children who attend the school.
A moment ago I emphasised the voluntary sector because the Churches are at the forefront of developing buildings and energising people. A family centre and a resource for the mentally handicapped are being planned in and around the parish church. All this and more is made possible because of what the Government are currently offering. We must commend that and recognise it.
Perhaps I may now turn to another estate in my diocese, that of Norton Grange in Stockton-on-Tees. Here I find, helped by another piece of research from the Rowntree Foundation, that some years down the line from a major input provided by Stockton City Challenge, conditions are still woefully inadequate. There remains a feeling of insecurity, of social stigmatism, of deterioration of the built environment; there is also lack of local consultation and a divide between those long established on the estate and those who are newcomers. That social divide is something that I have found on many different kinds of estates. It is evident that people still feel unprotected by the police, are denied participation in the labour market and do not have equal educational opportunities. Furthermore, because they are stigmatised over where they live, they do not have access to credit and other services which the rest of us take for granted. Those factors help to define what social exclusion is all about.
As the Rowntree report highlights, social exclusion is made up of a combination of factors which include jobs, safety, housing, health, education and, most importantly, the participation of local people in decisions about their own futures. The Rowntree report comes at a time when 1999 data are not yet available and the impact of recently introduced government programmes such as the minimum wage and families' tax credit are not yet known. We must give the Government credit for introducing a range of measures which target poverty and social exclusion. We hope to see the results of those measures in future surveys. However, for now, we must remain vigilant about the suffering which is caused when 20 per cent of the population of a western nation that is currently prospering still live on incomes below half the national average and the number of people below 40 per cent of national average income has risen by over 1 million.
1248
The Government will know that in the public, private and voluntary sectors, there are high expectations. Change must come and evidence of delivery will be demanded. For now, I look to the Government for reassurances on three fronts. First, I hope that, if noble Lords will forgive the language, the Government might get their act together in presenting their initiatives in a coherent way. There is some evidence that time and money are being wasted by fragmentation and duplication of effort between departments. I know that some local authorities are confused and frustrated by having to apply to different departments for help on different aspects of the same project. If that is true of local authority departments, how much more difficult must it be for small voluntary groups?
Secondly, will the Government encourage the regions to look at all their deprived areas in a coordinated fashion? Housing estates are not islands. They relate strongly to the economic and social factors within the whole region. If one looks at the map published by the DETR showing the 44 most deprived local authorities, it is clear that they cluster primarily into four regions: London, the West Midlands, the north-west and the north-east. I know that regional development agencies are designed to bring about a regional response, but they are driven by economics and perceived by ordinary people who are suffering the most to be remote bodies. The RDAs need to be part of a democratically elected regional assembly which can bring together all the different factors of a region. It is no accident that the four most deprived regions are now the ones which are most strongly campaigning for devolution in the English regions, which will provide cohesion and make the work of local authorities more decisive and more straightforward. Will this element of devolution continue to find a place in the Labour Party manifesto as it is prepared for the next general election?
Thirdly, will the Government underline their faith in the voluntary sector as playing a significant part in tackling social exclusion? According to the Rowntree report, the cost of bringing everyone up to the current level of half the national average income is only around 1 per cent of GDP. So, presumably, it could be tackled. However, in this House we know that the problem is not only one of money; it also concerns how to target taxes and benefits with the minimum of stigma and disincentives at the same time. In other words, it concerns human dignity as much as it concerns money. It is about enabling people to believe in themselves and know that they have a part to play in the processes of change.
The voluntary agencies, and not least the Churches, are close to the people. They know what engages them, what will lift their heads and what will put a smile back on their faces. Most often, the voluntary agencies are the local people, catching visions, sharing in the projects that are in place locally and putting a little more joy back into such communities. It is as they lift themselves up that much of the degradation that we see in certain parts of the housing estates of the kind I have described will be lifted. The voluntary sector welcomes

1249
the incentives recently introduced by the Government. It gladly plays its part in social regeneration programmes and it would be glad to have a reassurance that this partnership and encouragement will continue, along with perhaps a second look at the way in which Church buildings can be relieved of VAT.
Those are my three questions concerning poverty and social exclusion: government coherence; regional response and voluntary participation. I believe that they are integral to meeting the problems addressed by the Rowntree report. I only hope that the Government will take encouragement from the whole of this debate and I look forward very much to their response.
4.29 p.m.
Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate which was introduced by the noble Earl with his usual flair and erudition. Already, we have had some very interesting contributions covering a wide range of topics.
It is clear from the report being debated that problems of poverty persist and, in some cases, have worsened. Among improvements have been the falling levels of unemployment, with fewer adults on means-tested benefits and higher attainments among 11 year-olds at school. Nevertheless, more than 2 million children live in a household where no adult has a paid job and 3 million live in households with below average income. Therefore, relative child poverty continues to exist. Among 16 to 17 year-olds there are still 160,000 in neither education, nor training, nor work. As for old people, some 1.3 million are dependent entirely on state provision, which is acknowledged to be inadequate.
The Government have put in place policies designed to deal with some of those problems. We have the minimum wage, which has benefited some 2 million workers—mostly women. However, in my opinion it is set too low, even with the projected increase. There is the working families' tax credit but that, unfortunately, will not lift all working families out of poverty. There are the increases in child benefit. There is the Government's New Deal for the young unemployed, now extended to those aged 25 and over from April this year, and to be extended nationally to those aged 50 and over.
The voluntary programme for lone parents is said by the Government to be working. Some 90,000 people have taken up the offer of an interview, and some 23,000 are said to have found jobs. As the Minister will know, I am critical of the Government's policies in relation to pensions. I support an immediate increase in the basic state pension above that promised this year. Pensioner poverty is still with us and, in my view, cannot be dealt with adequately by the private insurance industry. In the main, however, there have been some welcome developments.
In advance of this debate, I received some most interesting briefing from an organisation known as the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust. As many of your Lordships will know, that organisation has devoted much time and
1250
energy to campaigning for the Department of Social Security to research and set the minimum income necessary to sustain good health and cover essential needs. Until I received that briefing, I was not aware that many governments, in fact, set minimum income standards. The countries that do so include Australia, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden and even the US.
The briefing I received points out that the absence of such a standard in this country impacts on a number of different government departments. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department should be concerned because magistrates have no minimum income standards against which to judge the level at which they should set fines. Sometimes that leads to imprisonment. Extensive poverty and survival-related crime fills the prisons with young men. An 18 to 25 year-old living at home with parents who are also on benefit does not have enough money to live on. If he has no job and becomes desperate for money, he sometimes turns to petty crime. If, for whatever reason, such young men refuse jobs or training, in a short time they will lose benefit. The result is that magistrates often face young men involved in petty crime with no money and no benefit from which to deduct a fine. The only punishment will be prison.
At the end of the New Deal, what happens to those young people who apparently have not participated? I gather that at the end of November 1999 the destination of some 73,950 young people who had ceased to participate was unknown. What happens to the young people who fall out of the statistics in that way? Are we experiencing what the United States has experienced in relation to some of its workfare programmes, whereby people disappear from the statistics and reappear among the crime statistics?
Many young women in poverty with inadequate benefits turn to prostitution. Asylum seekers receive only 90 per cent of income support. Therefore, the pressure on them to enter crime or prostitution increases. The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is involved because there is a clash between local authority regulations which cover rent arrears, housing benefit and council tax enforcement on the one hand, and income poverty of benefits and low pay on the other.
Problems exist in relation to council tax defaulters. Council officials habitually threaten defaulters with imprisonment. Most cases of defaulters never reach magistrates, who could reduce or remit debt on a hardship basis. At a magistrates' court the defaulter would have the right of representation if there was a risk of imprisonment. Rather than risk going to prison, the already impoverished defaulter borrows from licensed and unlicensed loan sharks at punitive interest rates. Repaying those rates out of inadequate benefits causes stress, ill health and sometimes suicide.
As has already been said, there are approximately 1.5 million people on low pay or inadequate incomes who are outside financial services altogether. They rely entirely on door-to-door money lenders who charge punitive rates. Their legal rights are thus reduced and

1251
their health is adversely affected in the pressure between law on the one hand and poverty enforced by inadequate benefits on the other. Magistrates have no guidance about the level of income at which they should remit council tax arrears on grounds of income poverty. That has resulted in expensive and sometimes unlawful imprisonment initiated by local authorities. Over 400 appeals to the High Court have shown that magistrates have acted unlawfully by imprisoning defaulters.
The shortage of affordable rented accommodation regularly causes stress in the life of the poor. That is particularly true of more affluent areas where, in conditions of economic boom, the price of living accommodation of almost any kind has rocketed beyond the reach even of many in stable employment. For the really poor, things can become quite desperate.
The Department of Health is involved because cases of poverty and debt-related stress, disease and malnutrition flood hospitals and doctors' surgeries with poverty-related expenditure. Particularly serious is the evidence of the relationship between inadequate income and low birth weight, which can be followed by a lifetime of illness. The Department for Education and Employment feels the effects of poverty because there is a connection between poverty-related malnutrition and educational under-achievement.
The Treasury is involved because eliminating income poverty would save the taxpayer money by eliminating some of the cost to which reference has already been made. There is no estimate available to government of the incomes from pregnancy to pension which are necessary to sustain good health and cover essential needs nor of the savings that could follow were such a minimum income standard established and put into practice.
It is in the interests of all that poverty and the social exclusion that it causes should be eliminated from our society. That has been the standpoint of everyone who has spoken so far in the debate, and I believe that it is a view widely held throughout this House. The notion that minimum incomes, in and out of work, should be set at levels which will sustain good health and cover essential needs may assist in dealing with what appears to be a quite intractable problem, despite the policies now in place and the good intentions which I sincerely believe are held by the present Government. I acknowledge and support what has already been done. I understand that the problems inherited by the Government were substantial. I look forward to hearing from the Minister at the conclusion of the debate what other schemes the Government have in hand to deal with these very grave problems.
4.38 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lord Russell for giving us the opportunity to debate these issues this afternoon. In particular, I thank him for his opening remarks in which he reminded us that poverty is not a competition between rural and urban areas.
1252
Particularly in that context, I regretted somewhat the Prime Minister's remarks during his visit to the south-west when he suggested that, generally, life in rural areas was of a better quality than that in urban areas. I believe that imputed in his remarks was the sentiment that we should not worry too much about rural areas. I believe that his remarks, for example, suggesting that people live longer in rural areas, ignored the fact that they might live alone for decades with access to any services being very difficult. His remarks ignored young people and the fact that, although they are not represented in the homeless statistics, that may be because often they are sleeping on friends' floors.
As a result of that kind of comment, I believe that it behoves the Government to consider developing minimum standards of access to services so that people in rural and, indeed, urban areas know what they can expect in relation to access to services and what, reasonably, they should be provided with, rather than being told that their quality of life is fairly good and that it is unreasonable to expect any better.
One of the indicators in the Joseph Rowntree report that made me think particularly is that which shows how much less the poorest sections of society participate in social, political and community organisations, a point already highlighted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. If the voice of those people were heard to a greater degree, it would be much harder to ignore their experience of life when making assessments of the quality of life. When we do not hear their voice, we fail to understand what has happened to the communities in which they live, which have become organised around those with plenty of money. The communities have become divided and the voice of those on low incomes is heard even less.
I have a rural brief, so it will not surprise the House that this afternoon I shall talk about rural areas. I shall also do so because in rural areas the divide between rich and poor can be more stark than in suburban or urban areas. This was clearly illustrated in the Wiltshire study quoted in the Performance and Innovation Unit report on rural economies. It found that 40 per cent of the population in Wiltshire had incomes of under £8,000 and another 40 per cent had incomes of over £40,000.
The situation is exacerbated by the fact that new housing in rural areas is extremely limited, and people with substantial incomes and the newly retired are choosing to move to rural areas, so that house prices increase in a way that bears little or no relationship to the availability of work or local wages; nor do they reflect the relationship with the availability of services, because people with larger incomes generally have access to cars or have cars of their own, at least until they become too old to drive.
Rural transport is certainly a key issue. It will be well addressed this afternoon by my noble friend Lord Bradshaw, so I shall confine myself simply to saying that rural transport has been under-funded for years and its improvement is vital. There are still hundreds of parishes with no bus service and thousands with only one daily bus.

1253
But providing more rural transport will not be a total panacea. Even with a massive expansion, getting people to the services will prove difficult, if not impossible. With local services being closed down and people having to '.ravel further and further to reach them, we need more imaginative solutions from the Government. I do not believe that transporting people to the services—sometimes it takes half a day by bus to go to the magistrates' court and back, or to the housing office and back—is a good solution. There may be far more imaginative ways of bringing such services to the smaller communities in rural England.
The first way is through information and communication technology. But rural areas have a particular problem here: the fact that computer ownership is not wide and that the infrastructure is not in place. One has to live fairly near a telephone exchange to install an ISDN line, and there is a danger that rural areas will suffer again by being left out of the e-commerce revolution because they simply do not have the infrastructure to keep up.
Service provision is also lacking in imagination because rural communities are not seen as needing a multi-functional place where services could be provided. I take the village hall as an example. When I use the words "village hall", I expect your Lordships imagine something with a corrugated roof, old loos and a basin with only a cold tap, and a kitchen with somebody's donated cooker and a tiny fridge, with nowhere to lay out cups for coffee. It is a really depressing picture. When I told a colleague this afternoon that I was going to talk about village halls, he said, "Oh, I wish you wouldn't" It is depressing, but is not that sad?
In fact, what we find in communities where motivated people have got together to raise funds to modernise a hall, or to build a new one, is that it is rented out to many groups, it starts to gain an income of its own, it does not need constant repair and it is cheaper to heat. It also becomes regarded by external agencies—for ex ample, the health authority—as a place where they can start to offer their own services. People meet there, learn there, receive services there and have fun there. There is then an increase in the voluntary spirit, which the Government recognise provides so much., because people come out from behind their front doors, gates and fences. They share their problems and begin to help each other with those problems in a way that cannot happen if there is no meeting place.
So the question is: why have village halls been regarded as so unimportant by successive governments over the years? They are seen as charming, old-fashioned centres for tea and flower arranging clubs. I do not believe that even the present Government regard village halls as potential centres for a range of services and activities that could transform the life of the entire community. The recent Cabinet Office report, Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, mentions village and community halls only at the end, in a subparagraph when talking about the National Lottery, where it says that village halls and community centres help provide the cultural heart of the community.
1254
When I talk about imagination, it is because I think that in provision for rural areas we need some vision of what a multi-functional centre could provide. Halls could be used for senior citizens' clubs, mother and toddler groups, youth clubs, meals-on-wheels centres, a shop, an IT centre—all sorts of things. But halls cannot be used in that way if they are old, crumbling, roofed with asbestos and barely heated.
The burdens now placed on volunteers running the halls are enormous. The right reverend Prelate mentioned VAT with regard to Church buildings. Until recently VAT on village halls could be reclaimed by parish councils. But then Customs & Excise called that a loophole and decided that village hall committees must pay. I understand that the average cost of village hall repairs is around £63.000, so having raised that money a committee will have to find another £11,000 for VAT. Imagine, my Lords, how many more jumble sales that represents. I believe that the Chancellor is reviewing charity taxation. It is an area that urgently needs to be addressed so that communities that raise their own funds are not taxed upon doing so.
The National Lottery provides funding for village halls, but obtaining the funds is an exhausting process for volunteers, who often have to write different business plans for different parts of the Lottery. The Lottery needs to understand the value of the multi-functional hall and create a one form, one business plan approach that means that volunteers do not spend half their lives having to apply to different parts of the Lottery for different parts of their hall.
I hope that the Government can address the potential for community buildings and for services to be delivered in communities with much more imagination, so that they can remove some of the difficulties that communities encounter in raising funds, and also encourage their agencies to think of taking the services out to such communities, instead of always transporting the people to the services in ever-distant sub-regional centres.
4.49 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has done us all a service in drawing our attention to the Rowntree report in this formal way today. We thank him very much for that.
Poverty and social exclusion continue to disfigure our country, even as we can prove that we live in an unprecedented era of peace and plenty. As our debate is about the have-nots, perhaps the House will bear with me if, to put that in context, I speak about the haves for about a quarter of a minute.
There is no doubt that most people—I emphasise "most"—have seen their standard of living improve over the past three decades. In the period beginning with the start of Edward Heath's premiership and coming up to the present Government's period in office, we have seen household incomes double in Britain. Since 1955, household spending has increased by an average of 2.5 per cent per annum, a very powerful expression of the principle of corn pound interest.

1255
As I said, most but by no means all families in Britain have shared in that income growth. In 1970, only 35 per cent of households had a telephone. By 1998, 94 per cent of households had at least one telephone. In the past few years the number of households with a home computer has risen to one-third; and the average weekly household income in Britain today is about £400.
However, our debate centres around the assertion that those averages of which I have just spoken of income growth disguise the very substantial inequalities in income distribution. I apologise to the right reverend Prelate for bringing a little party politics into this. My accusation against the Conservative years of the 1980s and 1990s was not that the majority of the people in this country did not see an improvement in their lives and living standards but that the impoverished minority were neglected to a large extent and allowed to languish in benefit systems which did not give them routes out of poverty.
The last government had enormous political energy which they chose to direct towards such areas as great privatisation and deregulation projects. Politics is all about choice and priorities. That was their choice. They did not choose to tackle an unreconstructed benefit system which did not assist in empowering the victims of two horrendous recessions out of poverty and into work and dignity.
I believe that this Government have committed themselves to fighting poverty and social exclusion on a very wide range of fronts. As noble Lords said earlier in this debate, poverty is extremely wide ranging. We have had a fascinating debate so far about urban and rural poverty. Because of the wide-ranging nature of that poverty, that is the only way that the Government can tackle it.
The Government's report Opportunity for All and the Rowntree report argue that poverty has multiple causes—poor housing, poor health, poor education, poor employment prospects, lack of opportunities. The causes as well as the effects must be tackled and it is right that Opportunity for All sets out specific standards against which the Government's performance in fighting poverty can be judged for all the stages of our lives—in childhood, in work and in old age.
The Rowntree Report and Opportunity for All shock us with the scale and depth of poverty experienced at the beginning of the 21st century by millions of British people. My noble friends have alluded to some of those dreadful shock statistics. More than 2 million children are still living in households where there is no adult in paid work. That is a doubling of the figure since 1979. The numbers of people living in relative poverty more than doubled between the end of the 1970s and now, from 5 million to 14 million. One in four working-age adults has poor literacy and numeracy skills.
I was certainly shocked recently by some of the RDA reports from the regions. As we know, the RDAs have all put forward their economic strategies. The
1256
figures on poor literacy and numeracy of young people in the regions is quite shocking if we are trying to regenerate our regional economies.
We have the highest rate of teenage pregnancies in Europe—seven times higher than that of Holland. More than one-third of single pensioners experience fuel poverty.
So what is being done to challenge those sickening statistics both from Rowntree and the Government's Opportunity for All report? As the Minister will no doubt draw to our attention a little later, an enormous amount of government energy has gone into tackling the causes of poverty. Employment has risen by over 0.5 million since the general election. Employment is no longer one of the great political debates of our time. We almost think now that it is becoming normal to have high levels of unemployment. Youth unemployment is down by 60 per cent, although obviously the figures which the noble Earl, Lord Russell, gave at the beginning of this debate are extremely sobering, particularly in relation to young black unemployed people. Unemployment is down by 50 per cent for long-term unemployed people since the general election.
The working families' tax credit was introduced, as we know, in October 1999. There have been substantial increases in child benefit and income support for children. As a result of the 1998 and 1999 Budgets, the poorest one-fifth of families with children will gain more than £1,000 per year. The first national childcare strategy has been initiated, with a substantial budget attached to it. And, of course, the national minimum wage, as my noble friends have said, has helped nearly 2 million people, over two-thirds of whom are women.
I wish to focus on the subject of poor women for the remainder of my contribution. While there is no doubt that women are a driving force in the new economy and the numbers of women in work have never been higher, the fact remains that women are also the largest group to experience poverty in Britain today.
As chair of the Women's National Commission, I am aware that women constitute 70 per cent of the lowest earners and 56 per cent of adults living in poverty. The groups especially at risk are lone parents and single pensioners, the majority of whom are women.
There is particular concern among women's NGOs that not enough recognition is given to the feminisation of poverty in Britain. While initiatives such as setting up the Social Exclusion Unit are to be welcomed, there should also be a far more embedded commitment to routinely disaggregated statistics on social exclusion by gender.
There is also a need expressed by women's NGOs for information on the distribution of income within households so that a much clearer picture can be built up of the gender effects of poverty. Not all income in all households is of equal benefit to all the members of that household. In 1997, the Scottish Poverty Information Unit found through research that income received by men is less likely to be spent on children

1257
than income received by women. One does not need a lot of research to come to that conclusion but that research exists.
That is particularly significant given the Government's emphasis on the redistribution of wealth through earning and tax credits rather than through welfare payments.
Women's NGOs also want to see the New Deal for lone parents succeeding, for ultimately women, as the vast majority of lone parents, will benefit only from achieving economic independence and a sense of control over their lives for themselves and their families through access to good quality training and work. So many women's NGOs welcome the New Deal for lone parents and wish it well. The Government are aware that encouraging more people to come to that first interview, when the possibilities which are there for them can be explained, is one of the great challenges which I know the Minister is taking up with her usual determination and energy.
5 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Hereford: My Lords, it is no accident that three bishops are speaking in this debate, which I warmly welcome. I join with other speakers in expressing my gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing the debate and, in particular, for his opening speech.
A bishop is charged at his consecration to,
"have a special care for the outcast and the needy".
Poverty is a moral issue. It is a Kingdom of God issue. Most of us who are bishops know a good deal about poverty and social exclusion through our regular contacts with clergy in our inner cities, outer estates and deeply rural parishes and from our own visits to those places.
Acute poverty and social exclusion have always existed in hidden pockets in the deep country. However, in the past two or three years, those problems have begun to bite much more deeply, especially in the marginal hill country of the north and west. They are becoming very serious indeed in parts of my diocese.
I was glad to support the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Morris of Manchester, in October last year to the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill. I am glad, too, that that debate led to a meeting between the Government, in the person of the junior Minister in the other place, and representatives of the Zacchaeus 2000 Trust and the Family Budget Unit. However, I am not certain that the outcome of that meeting was that the Government read, learned, marked and inwardly digested everything that was shared with them. We welcome the Government's commitment in principle to eliminating child poverty and social exclusion and in getting unemployed people into real and sustainable jobs.
We fully support the work of the Social Exclusion Unit in raising skills levels. That is absolutely critical. I echo the comments made in that regard. The West Midland RDA Survey revealed an alarmingly low
1258
skills level throughout the West Midlands. Raising self-esteem and involving communities in finding ways to help themselves are also important factors.
I was glad to see mentioned in the report of Policy Action Team 9, part of a national strategy for neighbourhood renewal—perhaps that is a sign of the slightly more co-ordinated government for which the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, was looking—the vital part played by faith communities in regeneration at all levels. Such communities range from the National Inner Cities Religious Council to small groups in every single deprived locality where they and more often the Churches are working together.
In my diocese the Churches have a notable record of achievement in the tougher parts of Telford. Next week I shall be meeting Church and community leaders to help plan a major regeneration project in the most deprived estate area of Hereford. That is a place in which I am glad to say there has been good initiative in convening consultation days. Local people have been invited to come together and say what they mind most about; what it is that hurts them most and what they most long to see changed in their communities.
All that is good and encouraging. However, grave problems remain which cause immense misery, needless illness and premature death. The cause is, quite simply, income poverty, particularly for those who live on benefits for any length of time. They just do not have enough money to maintain proper health, let alone afford those modest items of expenditure which are essential for any degree of social inclusion: pursuing hobbies and interests; occasionally offering hospitality; occasionally going to the pub; or enabling children to take a proper part in school activities. For the very poor, survival is a desperate juggling act. Good health, especially that of children and pregnant mothers, is a frequent and costly casualty.
Most of those unhappy facts are spelt out in the Rowntree report. The big statistic, to which at least three of your Lordships have referred, is the fact that the number of those living on less than 40 per cent of average income is rising dramatically. That is a striking and worrying statistic. We hope fervently that last year's changes; that is, the national minimum wage and the working families' tax credit, are beginning to turn the tide. However, some of the trends revealed in the Rowntree report are alarming.
There is other evidence of the grim consequences of acute poverty. The NSPCC has evidence of a direct correlation between child abuse and the incidence of unemployment and debt. Infant mortality and morbidity are directly related to poverty. The Confidential Enquiry into Stillbirths and Deaths in Infancy, to be published this month, contains this paragraph:
"The research interviewers encountered examples of poverty and deprivation which they could hardly believe possible in late 20th century Britain. The striking association of absolute poverty with the risk of infant death remains as clear as when first described by Templeman in 1892".
If an underweight and malnourished child survives, it will look forward to a lifetime disproportionately dogged by illness and cut short by premature death.

1259
The poor were dying younger in 1991 than in 1981. Unfortunately, in direct contrast to the general trend, Rowntree confirms that that difference still exists.
It is shameful that 32 per cent of children in the United Kingdom live in families on less than half of average income. It is also shameful that we do not attempt to set a properly-calculated minimum income standard. In Denmark the comparative figure is 5 per cent; in France, 12 per cent; and in Germany, 16 per cent. All those countries calculate and pay a minimum income to families. The Government have so far consistently refused to examine the true needs of poor families and establish a rational and realistic level of benefits. I urge the Minister to look again at the work of the Family Budget Unit, which is academically rigorous and based on real prices of real commodities.
Perhaps I may mention briefly two further facts about poor children which run counter to the general improving trend. First, they are twice as likely as children from families in social income groups 1, 2 or 3 to die in accidents. Secondly, their attainment levels in school declined while overall attainment levels were rising.
Old people are suffering too from acute poverty. Rowntree points to the problem of excess winter deaths among old people getting worse. The help available to old people from social services to enable them to continue to live in their own houses is becoming less because of cuts in funding to social services.
For families, there is the grim problem of debt. Rent or council tax arrears, or the absolute necessity to buy an urgently needed household object may mean borrowing from the hard-pressed social fund. That can lead to further deductions from an already inadequate benefit. Worse still is to borrow from the loan sharks whose dreadful rates of interest tighten the noose of poverty still further round the necks of those who fall victim to them.
Perhaps I may make some practical suggestions. The poor cannot wait 20 years or even five years for the Government's grand design to be in place and working. We hope that it will be in place and working but the poor need help now. As mentioned by my friend, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham, Rowntree wisely pointed to the need to target taxes and benefits with minimum stigma or disincentives. That is what matters. Such targeted help need not be unduly costly nor encourage further benefit dependency.
I have already expressed the hope that the Minister will look again at the recommendations of the Family Budget Unit. Will she also undertake to consider four further areas of short-term action? I refer first to the return to a system whereby the cost of some urgently needed household items can be met by unrepayable grants, not by the loans at present available, if one is lucky, from the social fund. The availability of such loans is patchy from one part of the country to another.
1260
Secondly, will she consider the possibility of pregnancy allowances payable in a way analogous to child allowances? Thirdly, will she empower local authorities, in certain cases, to remit arrears of council tax rather than restrict the power to the magistrates' courts, as has been done since the advent of the poll tax? Finally, can she give an assurance that the Government will bring about some improvement in the speed and flexibility with which benefits are paid to those who are in and out of what are, sadly, still often short-term jobs, to overcome those periods of desperate poverty and real destitution which result from the slowness of the present system?
I consider it to be a privilege to support the noble Earl, Lord Russell, in this extremely important debate.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Northbourne: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Earl for introducing this subject. Several noble Lords have spoken eloquently about money and have implied that social exclusion is a consequence of inadequate income. In the few minutes available to me, I intend to address the subject from the other point of view, while acknowledging that these two factors are entirely interactive. I am anxious to explore for a few moments what one might call the root causes of social exclusion and alienation; and, indeed, of poverty.
Too many young people today are still growing up inadequately prepared for life and for life in a society that is becoming more and more difficult to live in—a complex, competitive and technological society with fewer set rules and social structures than there used to be. I do not just mean young people lacking in literacy and numeracy or in technical education; I also mean young people lacking emotional literacy, as mentioned by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford, and inter-personal skills. This means that they are condemned to poverty and exclusion. They have no hope of getting a job because they cannot cope with society as we know it. I have in mind young people who ask themselves, "Who am I?"—as we all do and did—"Where do I fit in?" The answer comes back, "In the street, sleeping rough; in the black economy. Those are the places for me".
A recent survey entitled, Leading Lads, showed that, at the age of 14, 13 per cent of young men today are depressed, have no confidence in their future and no belief in their ability to have a place in our society. By the time they reach the age of 19, that proportion rises to 17 per cent. The problem of inadequate preparation for life often starts very early. Sadly, the cause is often the lack of a secure, happy and loving environment in the early years, which often leads to rejection when the child enters school. That is the beginning of a downward, slippery slope.
In saying this, I want to insist that I am not blaming anyone; I am not allocating blame. If we start to think in terms of blame—like blaming single parents, or whatever it may be—we shall lose the thread of the argument and fail to understand the real nature of the problem. With very few exceptions, the reality is that

1261
all parents start out wanting the best for their child. But circumstances intervene—for example, unemployment, poverty and debt, which have all been mentioned today, especially by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness, Lady Turner.
Debt is a terrible problem. Then there is poor housing and loneliness, alcohol, drugs and stress. However, there are also two rather more subjective factors. First, there is a lack of understanding of the needs of the child; in other words, that understanding of the parenting role that used to be passed down from generation to generation. Sadly, the golden chain is broken in some families.
Secondly, there is the problem of trying to rear a child single-handed. In that context, I should like to stress that I am not stigmatising, criticising or apportioning blame. Far from it. I believe that many single parents are doing an heroic job. But just as sailing around the world single-handed is more difficult than doing so with a crew, so it is more difficult to raise a child single-handed. There are, of course, two kinds of single-handed parenting. There are those in lone-parent households and there are those in households where the second parent is not contributing, or is perhaps making a negative contribution.
I intend to spend the next few minutes on the issues that surround this problem of single-handed child rearing. It is not, of course, the only problem. However, having worked for 12 years with seriously disadvantaged young people, I am convinced that it is an important one. Moreover, there is not enough time this afternoon to deal with more than one issue.
As noble Lords will know, there has been a lot of good, recent research in this field. All the evidence shows that some single-handed parents succeed and their children succeed, but that it is a tough and stressful job. Statistics show, as we all know, that a higher proportion of children from households where both parents are involved and share the job of childcare achieve their full potential. Therefore, it seem to me logical to ask whether there is anything that we can do; for example, would it be possible to increase the proportion of the nation's children who have these better chances? If the answer were yes, we would probably be setting the scene for many less stressed and happier parents.
I believe that there are things that can be done. Obviously I can only suggest one or two this afternoon. But, for example, should we not be ensuring both in school and in post-16 education that all young people have the opportunity to learn about the needs of children and to know the objective facts about a young child's need for security, love, stimulation, guidance and, above all, stability in the key adults in their life? Should not young people in school be learning about how to sustain committed relationships more successfully in the interests of their children?
I suggest that the Government need to look carefully at the legal, tax and benefits structures to ensure that they reflect the importance to society as a whole of
1262
families that are able to give their children the best start in life. Finally, perhaps more contentiously, I suggest that, as a society, we could also try to evolve a set of shared values about the mutual responsibilities of parents, children and the state. There is a great deal of uncertainty within the law today about the responsibilities of a father and those of a mother; and, indeed, about the responsibilities of children, as they grow up, to their parents. That also applies to the relationship of those inter-locking responsibilities with the responsibility of the state.
With the greatest respect to the right reverend Prelate, I suggest that these are not moral issues. They are, perhaps, moral issues for those who accept moral standards, but we live in a society where many people reject moral standards. In my view, they are social issues; issues of citizenship. If family structures are wrong, the effect on our society is dramatic.
In the past decade there has been an enormous sea change in the public perception of our responsibility as citizens to the environment. Is it too much to hope that, in the next decade, we might see a similar sea change in our society's perceptions of the mutual responsibilities of the different parties in the family? Enhanced expectations are so important. People often tend to perform in the way that we expect them to perform.
In conclusion, I ask the Minister to raise with her noble and right honourable colleagues the possibility that the Government's new citizenship curriculum could be used as a vehicle through which our society might work out for itself a family policy for the 21st century—a policy based on the parenting needs of children and one which accepts that, in return for the enormous benefits we receive, we, as citizens, also have duties and responsibilities within the family, which has been described as the basic building block of our society.
5.19 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, as noble Lords might expect, I shall concentrate my remarks on the effect of poverty on health in the United Kingdom, but of course the problem is worldwide, as the noble Earl pointed out.
I particularly thank the noble Earl for initiating this debate because it allows me to update my maiden speech of November 1982 which centred on the Black report, then only two years old. That report was commissioned in 1977 by my noble friend the late David Ennals—who died much too young—because of emerging evidence that health inequalities were creeping up again after a period when they had narrowed during and just after the 1939–45 war. Of course the findings were inconvenient for the Thatcher administration which was in power by the time the report came out. It had quite other plans for the economy than the redistributive measures recommended by Professor Black and his colleagues.
In fact, as we all know, the 18 years of monetarist economic policies, high unemployment, anti-trade union legislation and trimming of social security benefits after 1979 resulted in an unprecedented rise in

1263
income inequality, so that the UK has become the most unequal society in Europe. This was accompanied by a parallel rise in health inequalities which so far show no sign of disappearing. Luckily there is no need to spell these out in detail today, as my noble friend and most other members of the Government are fully aware of and acknowledge the problem. Frank Dobson, when Minister of Health said in 1997,
"Inequality in health is the worst inequality of all. There is no more serious inequality than knowing that you'll die sooner because you're badly off".
I heard a story about a tough old inhabitant of the Glasgow district of Drumchapel who, when told that the average life expectancy in his district was 10 years less than in rural Scotland, said, "Well if you lived in Drumchapel, Jimmy, you'd no want another 10 years". Of course, it is not only physical health that is worse in deprived communities but also mental health, including suicide, drug and alcohol abuse and crime, which may have been the main reason why that Drumchapel resident did not recommend living there.
In June last year the Government produced a document Reducing Health Inequalities: An Action Report which sets out the Government's responses to the Acheson report, Inequalities in Health, the successor, after 18 years, to the Black report. It lists a large raft of policies, many of which encourage action at a local level. Many of these are also described in Opportunity for All, published in September. Many of these suggestions have already been described by noble Lords in the debate. Poverty is, as we all know, to be tackled mainly by getting people into work or preparing them for work.
This will not only reduce the social security burden on the Treasury but is a laudable aim in itself if the work is sustainable and reasonably well paid and the conditions of work are acceptable. However, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford said, too much of the work that is available for the previously unemployed is poorly paid and temporary. Much of it is part-time, useful for women with dependants but seldom well enough paid to attract lone parents off benefits.
Poverty, therefore, is not automatically abolished by work, and though the working families' tax credit, day care centres and the minimum wage will certainly help those on the bottom rung of the working ladder, low pay will still leave many families in poverty. As other noble Lords have said, the Rowntree report found that the number of adults over 25 on low pay was "worsening"; that is, increasing. It will be interesting to see whether this figure comes down when the new measures are working fully.
However, as other noble Lords have mentioned, the largest number of those in poverty are those in families where no member is able to work and who are dependent on state benefits. I include in that number pensioners, the disabled, families—often lone parents with young children (that encompasses 2 million children)—and, increasingly, men in the age group 45 to 65 who have been made redundant or who have
1264
a health problem which would not normally have prevented them from working if work had been available but who are receiving incapacity benefit. It would be interesting to know if my noble friend can say whether this group has decreased in size as numbers in work have increased over the past two years, and, if so, whether they are actually back in work or on jobseeker's allowance or another benefit.
There is another group of mainly young adults described graphically by Nick Davies in Dark Heart, but also by my noble friend Lord Hattersley in articles in the Guardian, whose lives have been so damaged by the effects of poverty and emotional deprivation that it is extremely unlikely that they can ever be rehabilitated sufficiently to hold a regular job. I met quite a number of them in my practice in Kentish Town.
It is these recipients of state benefits who for one reason or another cannot work whose economic status has gone down most. Their relative poverty will continue to increase until benefits are uprated annually in line with average wage increases rather than prices. It is not fully appreciated, as I reported in the debate on the National Health Service two weeks ago, quoting Professor Peter Townsend in The widening gap, that,
"If the Conservative Government had not reduced social security benefits, it can be estimated that the poorest 20% of the population would today have about £5bn … more … disposable income … and that poverty by European standards would have been reduced by more than a third".—[Official Report, 2/2/2000; cols. 268–69.]
According to a report prepared by the House of Lords Library for my noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester and quoted by him in a speech on 11th October—this has been referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner—by breaking the link between earnings and social security benefits the Exchequer saved £119 billion between 1980 and 1996. That is about £7 billion a year. This was distributed in tax cuts to the better off, and, to quote my noble friend Lord Morris, this was,
"Not a trickle but a flood, and the direction was up".
It is no wonder that health inequalities have greatly increased in the past 20 years. To restore the relative position of those on benefit to what it was in 1979 would therefore cost some £7 billion annually. I suggest that this is perfectly possible if the will is there, and could be taken over a five-year period for example. It would mean increasing the social security budget by some 1.5 per cent per annum in real terms for five years, a much lower percentage than is proposed for the National Health Service.
In the long term this measure would almost certainly improve the nation's health and save more lives than an improved and modernised NHS. However, I realise that the need to sustain the NHS is more politically urgent and clamorous. Middle England demands it. Middle England, however, suffers now from having to pay more to maintain the health of the poorest 20 per cent of the population because of its worse health, as well as suffering the crime and drug related problems which are associated with low income. I suggest that Middle England would not be averse to increasing

1265
government expenditure, and therefore taxes in some form, to redistribute income—in easy stages, of course—if the Government were to make a convincing case for it, particularly pointing out that this expenditure would in the end be in their own interest. The widening gap quotes surveys which show that an increasing proportion of the population would now support an increase in income tax to help alleviate poverty. However, I am well aware that what people say in surveys does not always carry over to the ballot box!
But getting back to the pre-Thatcher situation of 1979 would only restore the relative health levels of that time, which were shown by Black to be unacceptably unequal between rich and poor. There is further to go. The Black report costed the changes which it recommended in 1980. Professor Townsend reports, using figures from Hansard, that in today's prices that would require £12.5 billion, the great majority of it being used to eliminate child poverty, which is one of the Prime Minister's stated priority aims; namely, to halve it in 10 years and to eliminate it in 20 years. The Government accept that there is unacceptable wealth and health inequality in Britain and that this does great damage to society.
Through reports and the speeches of Ministers, the Government talk in a persuasive way about the measures they are taking to combat this. Many are truly excellent. But I do not think that the Government have begun fully to accept the size of the investment that will be required to correct the damage done by the previous government's policies and to end the imbalances that existed before that. Only when the full extent of that backlog is faced squarely and corrected will we be able to claim that we have achieved the fairer society that the Government were elected to deliver.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I am pleased to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Rea. He spoke about the impact of poverty on health; I shall be dealing with another aspect of the problem. As my noble friend Lord Russell pointed out in his impressive and wide-ranging speech when he introduced the debate, I shall be concentrating on fuel poverty. I shall be taking as my point of departure Indicator 35 in the Rowntree report, which illustrates the number of excess winter deaths which occur in this country.
As noble Lords who have studied the report will have seen, up to 45,000 excess winter deaths occur in this country. This mainly affects people in the age group of 65 and over. The Rowntree figures record up to the winter of 1996–97; in the winter of 1998–99 the figure was 49,000. As my noble friend pointed out, this proportion is far in excess of that of any other west European country—something like two to three times in excess.
It arises because of the poor state of housing, particularly among the elderly on low incomes, with inadequate insulation and inadequate heating. The Government have described the state of fuel poverty as being that of persons who have to spend more than
1266
10 per cent of their income to achieve reasonable heating standards. If those people have to spend that proportion of their income on heating, they tend to skimp. In any event, spending it in a house which is poorly insulated and poorly constructed will have very little impact.
I have been much involved in this work for many years through the charity NEA, which concentrates on trying to improve the insulation in houses of people on low incomes. I have been in houses which are much more uncomfortable in winter within than without. At least outside the cold was reasonably dispersed. Inside it hit you as though there were a number of rapiers striking at you from under the door, through the window-sills and through various other crevices.
To be fair, the Government have recognised the problem, and in May last year they introduced a report on new ways of improving heating in homes, particularly the homes affected in the way I have described. This is described as the new Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES). Under this scheme the Government will be devoting considerably more resources than at present to improving heating standards in this category of home. In their estimate, there will be an improvement to the extent of some 460,000 homes being brought out of the fuel poverty area over the next two years.
This is a welcome development. Unfortunately, the number of households in fuel poverty is between 4 million and 5 million. Therefore, at the rate of 230,000 per annum—if that rate continued—it would take something like 20 years to resolve this problem.
The problem is fundamentally linked to the poor standard of housing in Britain. We have the oldest housing of any west European country. Some 45 per cent of our houses are more than 50 years old, compared to something like 20 to 30 per cent in other countries. The English housing survey, the last of which related to 1996, showed that there are 1.5 million households living in houses which are officially regarded as unfit for human habitation. This is in Britain, one of the most affluent countries in the world. A further 2.5 million will require very substantial expenditure on improvements to make them suitable for habitation, and many more will require a good deal of expenditure to bring them up to a reasonable standard.
So this is a fundamental issue in this country, which the Government are tackling in many ways. However—relating back to fuel poverty—we cannot afford to wait for 20 years to resolve it.
In this connection, the Warm Homes and Energy Conservation Bill is being promoted by Mr David Amess in another place. It proposes that a target should be set for the elimination of fuel poverty. I hope that the Bill will get a fair hearing in the other place and that it will be accepted when it comes to your Lordships' House. We need to know the timespan within which this problem will be dealt with. We cannot go on, year after year, with this large number of excess winter deaths which are due to poor housing conditions.

1267
As the Government have admitted in debates on the subject, there is little doubt that poor housing exacerbates ailments such as respiratory and cardiovascular diseases. The relationship is very clear.
I should like to end my brief remarks by quoting Helen Liddell, the Minister for Energy. Last November she stated:
"It is shameful and unacceptable that 5 million families are struggling to afford to heat their homes".
I am sure that your Lordships fully concur with that sentiment—and I am sure that the Government will do even more than they are doing already to try to deal with this issue.
5.38 p.m.
Baroness Howells of St Davids: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for bringing this report to the attention of the House. Much of all that has been said relates also to the minority communities, so I shall use my few minutes to bring to the attention of the House two areas of concern which are specific to the community from which I come and which have a real bearing on the poverty described in Rowntree.
Some visible minority groups have flourished in Britain. From within all communities there are always success stories. Despite this, ethnic minorities are still represented disproportionately in all the key poverty indices. As a result, many from those communities feel ignored, under-valued and powerless. Black communities feel the lack of a strong collective voice to articulate their needs to service providers. Their voluntary sector is under-developed and badly resourced, with small groups often competing with each other for scarce resources. There is a need to encourage more working partnerships and dialogue between different ethnic groups. The need is even more acute in rural communities, where language barriers and different skin colour cause minorities to be extremely isolated.
One of the most damaging aspects is lack of education. Education decides one's employment. Employment decides where one lives. Empirical data show that young black males are excluded from school at the most critical time during their school years. Unless the Government are prepared to invest in voluntary organisations at the grass-roots level which are able to articulate the ways in which the system fails such children and to suggest remedies, it will be impossible to break the cycle of deprivation.
A growing number of those excluded early from schools come from the Afro-Caribbean population. Racism and negative stereotyping within the institutions have almost always led to disaffection and disengagement from active citizenship. There is strong evidence that that process starts from a very young age and leads to a poor socio-economic position in society. In whatever plans the Government propose to tackle poverty and social exclusion, there must be a concerted effort to address the disaffection and disengagement experienced by many young men from my community.
1268
Another area of concern relates to those men and women who enter our institutions for second-chance education. Without proper family support, such people become so poor that survival, rather than any long-term benefits, becomes their real motivator. There are many from their own communities who could give them support and encouragement if some funding were available to set up projects aimed particularly at their special needs.
Major researches show that racial discrimination and racism are realities in our society. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, has already given the figures for unemployment among black males. Cultural diversity is not a popular concept in all walks of British life. Special financial help is a necessity if such men are to move forward into social inclusion.
A simple fact is that young men tend to marry when they feel that they are economically able to support a wife. Most families feel content when an economically able young man proposes to their daughter. In the black community, the lack of full-term education will by default create more young single parents. I know that that situation was initiated by the slave traders in the early days, but we have come a long way since then. We are now at the point where if children are thrown out of schools, they will seek other means of comfort. I suggest that we look carefully at those who exclude children from schools without another place for their learning.
5.43 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: My Lords, I welcome the opportunity that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has given us to explore some of the over-simple mythologies surrounding social exclusion; for instance, the myth that social exclusion is only regionally based, whereas the evidence points to severe deprivation also within regions. My own region, the east of England, would score quite well on a regional league table, but it contains also areas of serious deprivation. I also welcome the debate because it courageously makes public the benchmarks against which social exclusion issues may now be judged, although I acknowledge and welcome the considerable force of the noble Earl's request for more precise statistics, especially relating to the very poor.
I want to draw attention to three areas of concern. First, government macro-economic and macro-social policies, while no doubt put in place for a good reason, can have unforeseen micro-consequences. The decision, for example, whenever possible, to make the payment of benefits and pensions electronically will clearly save money at the macro-level. But translated to the micro-level, the irony is that, far from alleviating social exclusion, that policy may actually exacerbate it.
Let us take the example of a single woman pensioner living in my diocese in a Bedfordshire village, where there is no post office or bank. If her pension of £66.75 is paid electronically to her bank, in order actually to withdraw that money she has to spend at least £2 in bus fares—she is lucky that there is a bus at all—then spend money on a lunch because the buses do not run

1269
to suit her convenience. To collect her £66.75 will actually cost her approximately £6. That is 10 per cent of her pension spent in order to collect it. That seems totally unjustifiable and inequitable. Will the Minister assure the House that the electronic payment systems for benefits and pensions will be flexible enough to ensure that no pensioner, either rural or urban, is directly penalised for being old, immobile and a non-driver?
Secondly, the East of England Development Agency, in common with other RDAs, is, for understandable reasons, making much play of developing the local knowledge-based economy. I applaud that and I welcome it. But where knowledge is increasingly the capital of our new society, access to that knowledge is critical. That, again, has an impact upon young, old, and those who, through poverty or disability, lack mobility. I think, for instance, of a student trying to reach Cambridge Regional College where he is studying who, I am told, gets a lift with his father for the first 10 miles to a bus stop. If the bus does not arrive, he then has to phone his mother, who has to leave work, pick him up and drive a further five miles in order to get him to college. He has tried the alternative, which is public transport. It involves leaving home at half-past six in the morning, which I am assured, surprisingly, he would not mind, but it would cost him £20 per week. He cannot earn £20 per week to get access to his education.
If the knowledge-based economy is our future—and I have no doubt that it is—then social exclusion will encompass those debarred from that economy by distance and disability. I am sure that that is not the intention, but I should be glad to know what thinking is going on to ensure that the rhetoric about access bears some relationship to reality.
The third area concerns the role of the Church in combating social exclusion. I could give dozens of examples of what the churches are already doing, but I shall allow one or two to suffice. There is in my diocese an Anglican/Methodist Church in Bedford which provides community facilities for over 3,000 users per week. It is used by groups with learning disabilities, women's groups and groups from faiths other than the Christian faith. That community centre cost the people or that church more than £300,000 to create, including VAT. Not a single penny came from government sources or from local authority sources.
I give another example. In a survey conducted of Bedfordshire churches, I discovered that more than 500 adults voluntarily give their time to work with young people; again, at no cost either to national or local government. I have yet another example. In the east of England over 4,000 church wardens give their time to care for the 2,500 Anglican churches. Someone is bound to come up to me and say, "But what about the English Heritage grants?" I shall remind him that the Church pays more in VAT than it receives in grants—far, far more—and, irony of ironies, it pays it on building alterations specifically designed to try to create greater community use and greater social inclusion.
1270
My point is a simple one. In every community there is a church—and frequently a number of churches— which remains available while all other organisations, such as banks and post offices, move out. The vast majority of those churches provide not only the physical resources to combat social exclusion but also attempt to provide the more significant spiritual resources. Without being too pious, it is the injunction to love God and love our neighbours which is the fount of energy that enables churchgoers and others to do so much for their communities.
In these circumstances, can the Minister assure the House that the role of the Churches in combating social exclusion will be taken seriously by the Government, that steps will be taken to ensure ex officio status for Churches and other faith communities on the developing regional bodies and, perhaps most importantly of all, that a forum will be set up to enable heritage interests, which I regard with genuine respect, having once been an archdeacon—not least because some Members opposite knew me as an archdeacon—to meet with social exclusion interests, to see how our Churches can be released to play an even greater part in creating a more just and fair society. I recognise and welcome the energy being deployed to tackle social exclusion, but what I long for is the development of more imaginative partnerships in which Churches, other faith groups and especially those who are socially excluded themselves can play a role which reflects the work they are already doing.
5.53 p.m.
Baroness Gale: My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for the opportunity to debate and highlight the matter of poverty and social exclusion, and the measures needed to reduce them.
As someone who lives in the Rhondda Valley, I see the effects of poverty and social exclusion every day. The Rhondda and the other valley communities in South Wales suffered greatly during the 1980s and 1990s, when we saw the decimation of the coal and steel industries. The loss of a job in these circumstances is a loss to the community. When a colliery closes down, the community closes down. It brings about a feeling of despair and of no hope for the future. It brings poverty to that community and also a rise in petty crime and drug abuse among young people. But most of all, it brings poverty and social exclusion to young children. This picture I paint of a valley community sounds rather depressing. But I believe that under this Government things will improve. Already measures are being put in place which are bringing back hope and an anticipation that the future will be brighter.
The problem facing the Government in eliminating child poverty is an enormous one. The statistics are well known, but are worth repeating. Child poverty has trebled over the past 30 years: 4.3 million children now live in poverty. Disproportionate numbers of them either live in households where there is no adult earner, or in one parent families. Combating poverty

1271
and social exclusion that threatens to separate these children from the mainstream is a complex task, but a hugely important one.
The Government are tackling the problems on many fronts. In their document Opportunity for All—their first annual report tackling poverty and social exclusion—they set out the aim of eradicating child poverty within 20 years. That is a very ambitious aim but one which the Government are determined to meet. How can the Government achieve their aim? From where we are now, if we do nothing—or very little—if we fail to break the cycle of deprivation that is handed down from generation to generation, we will build a society where there is no hope for these children.
We have seen the bad effect of child poverty which shows itself in poor health, low attainment at school and poor prospects in the job market, to mention just a few. In their report the Government say:
"We are determined to create a United Kingdom where everyone has opportunities to work, to learn, to make a contribution and to achieve their full potential … Our goal is for a fairer society; where no child lives in poverty".
One of the measures introduced in October 1999 was the working families' tax credit. That will give a minimum income of £200 a week to working families with children. That means an average of £24 extra per week for these families. In Wales alone the Inland Revenue has said that 75,000 families should benefit from the working families' tax credit in the financial year 2000–01.
On child benefit, approximately 360,000 families in Wales will benefit from the uprating in April. That will be the highest ever rise in child benefit. The latest information available on the New Deal, as it affects Wales, shows that more than 8,500 New Deal participants have obtained a job through one or other of the New Deal initiatives. Within that total, the New Deal for 18 to 24 year-olds has seen more than 6,500 jobs secured by young people, including 4,800 sustained jobs. The New Deal brought the hope of a job to young people in Wales, many of whom live in some of the most deprived areas in the country.
I use these examples to show that the Government's policies on assisting families with children are working with such good results. This is just the start of the 20-year plan to eradicate child poverty. The national minimum wage has helped many low paid workers to rise above poverty wages, and the promised increase will assist these people even further. Together with the 10p income tax and the working families tax credit, it is helping to make work pay and giving back pride and dignity to people as they are able to provide better for their children than they would have been able to do had they continued to live on benefits.
In conclusion, I believe that the Government have made a good start in their aim to eliminate child poverty in 20 years. Continuing to monitor the initiatives they have begun should enable their aims to be met. It will not be an easy task but it is one which must never be abandoned. For future generations, the benefit of seeing children grow up in homes that are
1272
adequately financed will have a positive spin-off in many directions: for example, good health, better housing, better schooling, an improved family environment and an improved, stable family life. Those aims are worthy of a Labour government. I look forward to future initiatives in this field in the lifetime of this Government.
6 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I join many others in thanking my noble friend Lord Russell for affording us the opportunity to focus our attention on those members of society who are in the most urgent need. At the outset I declare an interest. I have worked for many years for Age Concern England, and for a proportion of that time I have worked in some of the poorest and some of the most affluent areas in this city. I want to concentrate on some of the poorest people of all—older people of working age but not in employment, pensioners and other older people.
During the past two years it has been interesting to watch the Inter-Ministerial Group on Older People as it has developed a plethora of initiatives with wonderful titles; for example, Listening to Older People and Better Government for Older People. Welcome as many of the programmes are because they highlight the extent to which older people are marginalised in society, there are a number of somewhat more basic ways in which the Government are failing to tackle poverty. There are some simple things that can be done, and it is on those that I want to dwell in the short time available.
The Government's overall priority, repeated like a mantra by the Chancellor, is to "get people off benefits and into work". For many people aged over 50, the odds against their finding a job are so high that that is not so much an aspiration as a pipe-dream. The Government's own statistics, drawn from the Labour Force Survey, supplied in a Written Answer to my noble friend Lord Russell on 18th January, indicate that the number of people aged between 50 and 60 who are not in employment rose from 1.91 million in 1989 to 2.12 million in 1999; and there was a slight decrease in the figure for those aged between 60 and 65, from 1.88 million to 1.81 million.
Unemployment among older people is becoming an increasing problem. A recent study from the LSE indicates that 600,000 more men and 200,000 more women aged over 50 would be working now if older men were working at the level of 1979 and if older women had shared in the increase in work for younger women over the same period. Many studies—perhaps the most notable of which is that produced by Professor Alan Walker entitled Too Old at 50—provide ample evidence of ageism among employers. People are laid off or encouraged to take early retirement simply on the grounds of age. To give an idea of the scale of unemployment among older people, it may be helpful to draw your Lordships' attention to a study published by the Employers Federation on Age, which has calculated that institutionalised ageism costs the British economy £26 billion every year.

1273
During the Christmas holiday I was in conversation with three very good friends of mine. The oldest celebrated his 40th birthday last year. One is a civil engineer, one is an accountant and one is a computer systems designer. One will be made redundant in a couple of months' time and the other two have looked round their offices and come to the realisation that there is no one in the office aged over 40. Each has up-to-date computer skills but all are worried that when we meet again next Christmas they will be unemployed. Ageism has ceased to be a problem solely for old people.
Despite the extent of unemployment among people aged over 50 and the extension of the New Deal to include that age group, unemployment shows no sign of decreasing. Nevertheless, the Government have so far refused to introduce anti-age discrimination legislation, preferring to rely instead on a voluntary code of practice for age diversity in employment. A few enlightened employers such as B&Q have set out specifically to recruit and retain older workers and have valued their skills. I applaud them for being pioneers of what I hope will one day become standard best practice in employment. However, if the pattern of combating other forms of discrimination, such as racism and sex discrimination, are repeated, it will be 30 years before older workers fight their way on to shortlists solely on their ability. That is simply far too long. In the mean time, more and more people will be compelled to exist below the poverty line.
So if employment is not achievable, what are the Government going to do to alleviate pensioner poverty via the benefits system? The answer is, not quite as much as the spin doctors would have us believe. At a time when the economy is growing, pensioners are being left further and further behind.
The increase in the basic state pension of 75p from April is an insult. That increase, from £66.75 per week to £67.50 per week from next April, will give those with a basic state pension not quite enough to meet the £40 increase in council tax which, net of all rebates and benefits, a typical pensioner will, have to pay next year. And there will be no additional income to meet any other increases—for example, in community care charges. The 75p increase was calculated last autumn, when inflation was low. It was low 'because mortgage and interest rates were low. So those pensioners who also rely on savings income have been hit by a double whammy.
Whenever I talk to groups of pensioners, one topic is always mentioned; namely, the plight of pensioners who have just enough savings to take them over the capital limits. There are 600,000 pensioners who live below the income support line but who have capital above £8,000. For most, that is their life savings. We are not talking about people with the riches of Croesus. They are having to get by on an income well below the level of the minimum income guarantee, and this year their income will rise by a grand total of 1.1 per cent. The capital limits were set by the previous government, and they have been frozen for three years. This Government have promised to review those
1274
limits. But pensioners have been waiting for two years. I put a simple question to the Minster. How much longer are they going to have to wait?
I now turn to the minimum income guarantee—a misnomer if ever there was one! It is certainly minimal and it is income, but it is not a guarantee. One-third of those who are entitled to the income guarantee do not receive it. At present, the only way to ensure that pensioners receive their entitlement is to increase the basic state pension. Why will the Government not do so?
If the Government continue to resist increases to the basic state pension, we really must question their commitment to getting money to pensioners who are most in need. At present, 750,000 pensioners entitled to income support do not claim it. The Department of Social Security has conducted research on the number of pensioners who should be claiming but who are not. It has come up with the usual reasons: ignorance, stigma, the complexity of forms proving too much for people. I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Howells. Those pensioners who come from minority communities are even more unlikely to be able to claim.
On 17th January in another place, Mr John Grogan drew attention to the problem of the under-claiming of income support. He cited the DSS research and also the solution suggested by the department: namely, making income support an automatic payment without the need to claim. At the time of an application for the basic state pension, pensioners would be asked what income they received from other pensions. If that did not add up to the minimum income guarantee, they would automatically receive a payment. On that occasion the Minister, Mr Rooker, expressed interest in that as a way of ensuring that those who are in greatest need receive the support to which they are entitled. I ask the Minister whether that is still under consideration. If it is, when is an answer likely to be forthcoming?
Perhaps I may refer briefly to the issue of fuel poverty. The Minister will no doubt talk about the winter fuel payment. But that payment will not form part of the basic state pension and will therefore not be uprated. Like the £10 Christmas bonus, it could remain at the same level for the next 25 years. Ministers have said repeatedly that it is equivalent to £2 a week on the basic state pension. Why can that not be done and then uprated automatically?
I conclude with one comment on energy efficiency. For many years the organisation Care and Repair had a major government contract to carry out work on pensioners' homes. It has now lost that contract which has been awarded to somebody else. That is a major service which is known to older people who suffer some of the worst housing problems. I believe that that will be a severe blow to the attempts of the Government to tackle both the causes and effects of fuel poverty. I do not believe that on its own the winter fuel payment will do so.
6.10 p.m.
Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I too express gratitude to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this debate. I start with a confession. Until yesterday morning I thought that last week had not been a good one for me. The week started with my speaking and voting against the Government, having been driven by conscience. As the week progressed I was given to understand that the Government had resisted the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission to improve the level of the national minimum wage. As my noble friends can testify, I thought that again I would be in conflict with the Government that I support.
But that was last week. When I awoke yesterday and turned on the radio things were totally different. I was pleased to hear the announcement that the Government would increase the level of the national minimum wage in line with the recommendation of the Low Pay Commission. It was that announcement which prompted me to speak in this debate on poverty, social exclusion and the way in which low wages contribute to the state of deprivation in which so many people find themselves.
For 28 years I represented workers in the private service sector, the overwhelming majority of whom are women working in shops, restaurants, cafes, pubs, clubs and hotels. Over the years I was able to observe the impact of low wages on people's living standards. Low pay—often called "poverty wages"—is not new but very old. What is so damning is that it is still with us at the start of the new millennium. What is the history of low pay? We know that the situation was considered to be so bad at the beginning of the 20th century that Winston Churchill introduced the wages councils which covered the areas of industry renowned for low wages and sweated labour. In order to address that dismal situation the wages councils survived for most of that century until the 1980s when they were swept away, leaving millions of vulnerable workers to the mercy of the market or, more accurately, bad employers.
Is it not a funny old world when sometimes attitudes and party policies change dramatically? When in government the Conservatives abolished the only mechanism to provide legal minimum rates of pay as a means to reduce poverty among working people. However, when in opposition the Conservatives fought tooth and nail to prevent the Labour Government introducing a national minimum wage of just £3.60 per hour. With the return of Michael Portillo, the Opposition now say that the national minimum wage will not suffer the same fate as wages councils if the Conservatives are returned to government.
In the five years from 1978 to 1983 I had responsibility for negotiating with employers through the wages councils on behalf of workers employed in the hotel and catering industry. I remember when the weekly pay of many workers in London hotels was less than the charge for one night's accommodation, and they were not the most exclusive hotels either. That situation probably exists in some hotels today. The national minimum wage will not of itself solve the
1276
problem of poverty and social exclusion, but it is a starting point for impoverished and vulnerable workers on which we can build. That is the main way in which we can eventually remove the scourge of low pay that is suffered by the working poor.
Until the wages councils were abolished the demand for a national minimum wage received only limited support because the legal mechanism provided by those bodies covered the overwhelming majority of low paid workers in the private sector. But as soon as the wages councils were abolished the demand for a national minimum wage grew rapidly. Now that we have the national minimum wage we must ensure that its value is at least maintained. I believe that it should be increased in real terms at every opportunity because that is the only way to eliminate the scandal of the working poor of which we should all be ashamed.
I draw attention to just three references in the Rowntree report which I believe are worthy of comment. First, in the section headed "Poverty and low income" reference is made to,
"the introduction of the National Minimum Wage and the working families tax credit, both of which will now be influencing the incomes of many of the working poor".
It must be acknowledged that these measures, introduced by a Labour government, will undoubtedly make a difference. The second reference reads:
"The number of people with less than 40 per cent of average income, who are the very poorest, is rising. Between 1994/95 and 1997/98 there was a rise of 1.1 million".
That is a clear indication of how the problem was becoming worse. To an extent that has been stayed because of the measures introduced by a Labour government. I believe that the third reference is the most important:
"The duration of time spent on a very low income can have a considerable effect on the deprivation of a person or family".
I conclude by referring to the word "deprivation". Deprivation faced by the working poor is not just a denial of the material things of life or the inability to build a satisfactory home, to own a car, to take a holiday, to save for an emergency or special occasion, to save for a pension or to provide for one's children the things that their school friends have. Deprivation can be all those things in a society as affluent as ours. But deprivation is more than that. There can be deprivation where, through poverty pay, there is an attack on dignity and self-respect which are damaged, sometimes beyond repair. Deprivation also means that hope and confidence ebb away to be replaced by a feeling of guilt. That leads to despair and depression which often arise from the severe burden of debt where the poor become the victims of loan sharks. Those consequences are faced by far too many in this land of plenty and should not be tolerated any longer. The sooner they are eradicated the sooner our society will be a better place for all of us.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, in introducing this debate, my noble friend Lord Russell said that I would talk about rural transport. I do so from the

1277
background of an Oxfordshire county councillor who has had responsibility for this aspect of policy and also experience of the bus industry.
The Government have done some good things: they have introduced a rural bus service grant and the rural bus service challenge fund. They have restored—I believe that the correct term is "unfrozen"—the fuel duty rebate and promised half-fare passes for the elderly. Although that promise was made some time ago, it has yet to be delivered. Many people in rural areas do not expect a great deal. A study conducted by my colleagues at the University of Oxford states that those who travel most are more unhappy than those who travel less. Travelling a great deal and racing around makes life more stressful and more unhappy. However, people in rural communities want a sufficiency of travel opportunities and will not complain about having more of them.
In seeking to evaluate the usefulness of the rural bus service grant and other government measures, I have considered carefully a hierarchy of users of buses. The top priority is getting people to employment. In the survey of people in rural Oxfordshire, concern for their children's employment prospects is placed first in the list of worries of people in rural areas. Having a job is placed by rural people well above having a car. The job is at the centre of people's desires.
Second in order of preference was the ability to undertake training and education. That was referred to by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of St Albans. Children who live in Oxfordshire can in general travel only to the school where the school bus goes. But those with two cars have a choice of schools; they are able to take their children to the better schools. However, in instituting these new rural bus services, we find that others are allowed a choice. Sixth form education in parts of my county has to be sought at colleges of further education and not in the sixth form. Many children travel 20 miles or more to receive sixth form education; and we do not pay their travel costs. We do not have the money, so the families have to pay them.
Health is the third item in my hierarchy. Getting to the doctor and the hospital are important. In 10 days' time we shall see the closure of two community hospitals in Oxfordshire, in Watlington and Burford. It is a long way from Watlington to the next hospital. People were promised that there would be more domiciliary care, and transport to the next hospital. At yesterday's public meeting, people were told that the domiciliary care arrangements have not been made; transport has not been arranged; but a planning application has been made to turn the hospital into luxury flats which are not for the people who live in that area. There is also the need to get to an optician or a dentist. NHS care is thin on the ground. Although I may not need it myself, the occasional visit to a hairdresser does a great deal to lift some people's spirits, but it may be a long way to travel.
The noble Baroness, Lady Byford, mentioned shopping. Although local shops are, valued, they are more expensive. If people have to travel a long way to
1278
get to them, the cost is even greater. The lowest income families in rural areas on average travel 25 miles a week to do their shopping against 12 miles in the more urban and suburban areas.
The last item on my list is entertainment. Young people are often cut off from any form of entertainment. I have outlined the features which I believe a regular bus service should provide. I believe that I am right to put getting people into employment at the top of the list.
I regularly use the services funded under the rural bus service grant. I see the people who use them. After a year, quite a lot of people are now travelling to new jobs which they have obtained because the bus services are in place. Work is changing in the rural area. We have two golf courses where there used to be farms. We have hotels or nursing homes in large houses. People use the buses when leaving their children in childcare nurseries—they seem to be a growth industry—on their dash into cities to work. And, of course, people use buses to catch the train. If the bus services are to be any good, they have to cover broad working hours from seven in the morning until seven at night. They must run on Saturdays because people have to be able to get to work; and in some cases on Sundays, otherwise they do not get a job. Unfortunately that is the way in which work is now organised.
There are social aspects. When I was travelling on one of these buses recently, an elderly couple said to me, "This bus is a godsend to us because since our son left home"—he had the car—"we can't get out". Noble Lords may consider that a weekly trip into Watlington is hardly a visit to Sin City, but it makes a huge difference to those people's lives. We should not undervalue getting out from the four walls of one's home and seeing a few different people.
How are the Government evaluating these bus services? There are (what I call) discontinuities. We may have got a dozen people into work and out of benefit; and that has saved a lot of money. The county council pays for the bus subsidy but somewhere else in government that money is saved. However, the two are not matched in any form of accounting.
I gave the Minister previous notice of matters to which I hope that I shall receive some answers. All shire counties want to know whether the rural bus service grant will be continued. At present it will run out in less than a year's time, and we are busy letting out tenders. We do not know the answer. It would be a tragedy if the good we have done will be lost.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I have not had prior notice of these questions. However, it is not a debate on transport.
Lord Bradshaw: My Lords, because I intended to raise these issues, I wrote a letter about them which should have arrived here on Monday morning.
One of the greatest obstacles to maintaining services in rural areas is the need for small buses. The present regulations limit the size of what is called a taxi-bus—

1279
the Government are keen on such buses having given a lot of money to them through the challenge fund—to eight seats. The limit needs to be raised to 12 seats to accommodate the people in rural areas. In many places, large buses are inappropriate to the needs of people.
My final point relates to bus passes—I think that they will be made available to senior citizens—for which they will pay £5 and receive half fare travel. I understand that a provision will be included in the Transport Bill. There are two worries. First, we want to be sure that people in one local authority area pay one £5 and can travel over the boundaries into other areas. With the reorganisation of local government, people often want to shop in the next town which is outside the local authority area. The pass must be useful.
The second and more important point relates to the young person's rail card. It is a commercial approach and many young people use it. There is no equivalent on buses. Many young people find bus fares incredibly expensive; mention has been made of that. If the Government are concerned about social exclusion of young people in rural areas, they should consider seriously extending the possibility of half fare travel to young as well as old people. They are two distinct groups but they both suffer from a form of exclusion.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Lucas: I, too, congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Russell, on initiating the debate. One of the few pleasures of being in opposition is to find myself on the same side of the House as the noble Earl, and I intend to enjoy that for the next 10 minutes.
I shall concentrate on the social exclusion aspect and on those people who do not have access to mainstream society and economic life but nonetheless should have. There are many reasons why people cannot gain such access. They tend to be personal and diverse. The reasons are hard to categorise and, as the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, demonstrated, they are cross-departmental. I think that the only departments the issue does not touch are the Foreign Office and Defence.
The noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, raised the point earlier of communications. The obvious solution to that is for the Department of Trade and Industry to have a clause in its contracts with mobile telecommunications companies that their masts and the accompanying trunk telecoms to connect them to their base stations might be used for the forthcoming ISDN system that is to be the way for businesses to connect to the Internet but that is otherwise restricted to places within three miles of the main exchange. If one is seeking to tackle a problem that wide and diverse, it is extremely difficult to do it out of one ministry set up in a conventional way.
I hope that we all agree that this is a problem we need to tackle. There is immense human cost and suffering as a result of people being excluded from the mainstream of society. To be excluded is a very
1280
uncomfortable and unpleasant thing on a personal basis. It costs the country a great deal to support people who are excluded in this way and who could, if they were able, earn their own place in society. In many cases people who are subject to this become disruptive influences in society and cost all of us a great deal of heartache and disruption in our own lives as a result. It is a hard and long road to do something about social exclusion. It is, as the right reverend Prelate said, a matter of community, not of partisan politics. It is something that we all ought to be joined together in doing. We ought to respect the structures set up by this Government. I am immensely impressed by the Social Exclusion Unit and by what lies behind that as a philosophy. We ought to give a commitment to respect that and to respect the structures and the initiatives so that our very long term policies can be carried forward from one government to the next without ever wondering whether they will be cut short as a result of a change in government, let alone a change in Prime Minister or Chancellor of the Exchequer.
As the noble Earl, Lord Russell, said, research is enormously important. It seems to me sometimes, certainly when I look back at my time in government, that there is a disregard for the value of information. Information is not collected. When it is collected it is not made widely available to researchers. In all these things we are dealing with a difficult and complex problem. We ought to approach every single initiative from a research perspective. From the very beginning they ought to be designed to produce information, enabling evaluation to take place of how they have gone. Otherwise, how can anyone else build on what has gone before? I am sure that this Government are improving upon something that was our practice. I deduce that from the gestures of the Minister. But there was certainly a lot of potential. When one looks at the area of social exclusion about which I speak, I do not think that public subsidy is the thing. This is not a question of bread and circuses. We are looking at people stuck down a well, floating on a table, and raising the water level a bit does not make much difference. We have to throw them a rope and help them to climb it.
The key issue we have to tackle is the tax rate on people whose benefits and entitlements, as the poorest members of society, are withdrawn as income comes in. This Government are starting on the issue; we never did. I shall be praising the Government far too much for the comfort of my own Front Bench. One of the notable things we did was to reduce the top tax rate to 40 per cent because we understood that that would increase the Treasury tax "take" and therefore the Treasury's ability to help the lower paid. This Government, to their credit, have taken that on board and have not sought to reverse it. We never had the courage—and certainly the Treasury never had the courage—to do that for the lower paid. There may be an argument that these people have been so long out of economic life, that, like the average Russian, they will not know what to do with the freedom. That should not stop us trying. We can do these things by way of test, trying this way and that way to find out

1281
what kind of support is needed. We ought to have in mind the aim that we should bring the tax rate down. Forty per cent may be a little ambitious. But certainly 50 per cent should be considered. One ought to be able to keep half the extra one earns. I am sure that if people could do that, then the incentive—when people have adjusted to put work above the benefits received—to go out there and earn a bit extra would be sufficient that the benefits to the Treasury at the end of the day would more than outweigh the cost. That is a very hard argument to win with the Treasury. Because it is being done by way of the benefit system, we can carry out trials in restricted areas. We do not have to change the whole tax system There could be trials in the benefits system. I hope that that is something the Government will come to consider if they are not already doing so.
We need to increase people's access to training and education, jobs and advice. People who are stuck in social deprivation have a very hard time making it on to the jobs market. In all kinds of ways they become disabled from getting there. There heeds to be great concentration on providing the services that these people require to get back into work. The Government are doing well. One only has to see what services are available to ex-prisoners to realise that an awful lot needs to be done.
There is much we can do to stop people ever getting into this difficulty or, if they get into it, to make sure that they have the ability to get out. It is an area where very notably the sins of the father are visited on the son. One has only to look at the backgrounds of many prisoners to realise that far too many come from homes where life was difficult and where they lacked the training and upbringing that would have equipped them to deal with problems and difficulties. Prison is one of the places where parenthood education is really starting to show. There are some very interesting initiatives taking place. Prisoners respond enormously well, not surprisingly, because it is something they realise they need but to which they never had access before. There is great scope for taking that kind of initiative out into schools generally. Very few of us who embarked on marriage really knew what parenthood was about other than what we had learned from our parents. If you have not learned much from your parents, there is very little you can do.
The Government also, in my view, need to support marriage. It is not a question of marriage being the best thing for the parents; it is clearly the best thing for the kids. It is the best environment in which to bring up children. One must recognise that marriages break up a great deal in modern society, that there are many different forms of family, and that family is something that survives the end of marriage. There is no reason why a kid should not associate with both parents. In my case I hope that they do. Family is something that does not end with marriage. There should be structures within government to support that continuation. It should not be left to parts of the noble Baroness's department which at times seems to be driving families apart when a marriage has ended. Perhaps that was more the practise under our government than hers. It does, however, seem to be the case in some respects.
1282
We need to do a great deal about education. Much has been said on that. We did a great deal and this Government are building on that, equipping children with the basic things they need in order to succeed in life. Literacy and numeracy come at the head of those requirements. I would put behind that what I think comes under the general heading of citizenship, which this Government, again, are pursuing. There should also be an emphasis on history and developing a real sense of who we are and why we are and where we are in this society so we can feel that it is something to which we belong. That is one of the great motivators. A feeling among people that they are able to do things within society creates the feeling that they belong to it and that they have a part in it.
We should, beyond anything else, value low achievers. It is one of the great features, for instance, of the education system in Singapore that they really value the bottom 20 per cent on the academic scale because that is where the really interesting people are. By making sure they come out of education well equipped for the world, they have built some world class companies consisting of people who were in that bottom 20 per cent.
We all have much to learn. There is much to do in this area. I congratulate the Government on what they are doing and I hope they continue their good work.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Patel: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating the debate. I want briefly to speak about the health of women and children and socio-economic depravation.
The health of women is particularly important, not only because they constitute more than half the population but because of their role as carers for children and other dependants, and in pregnancy itself. The objective of pregnancy care has always been to facilitate the birth of a full-term, well grown normal baby with a minimal risk of mortality and developmental problems. Low birthweight babies are more likely to have health and educational problems and it has now been shown by Barker and many others that low birthweight is associated with hypertension and cardiovascular disease in the adult offspring and that the association may be causal. Low birthweight is twice as common in lower social class women, thus rendering even more important the provision of adequate resources and care for women before, during and after pregnancy and neonatal services for the baby.
The confidential inquiry into stillbirths and deaths in infancy, published this month, illustrates with tragic clarity the effects of poverty on health. It reports:
"the research interviewers encountered examples of poverty and deprivation of a degree which they could hardly believe was possible in late 20th-century Britain. This striking association of absolute poverty with the risk of infant death remains as clear as when first described by Templeman in 1892".

1283
To that can be added information from the World Health Organisation that England and Wales share with some other countries in eastern Europe the highest rate—7 per cent—of low birth weight babies under 2,500 grams in Europe.
Evidence previously presented by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists to the independent inquiry into inequalities in health associated the poor nutrition of the mother with low birth weight. Nutrition is considerably worse in deprived women than in the better off.
The work of Professor Eva Alberman has clearly demonstrated the reduction in child mortality and morbidity that would result from the improvement in the birth weight of babies born at less than 2,500 grams through improved nutrition of the mother. Long-term health problems begin with underfed conception. Foetal growth restriction during pregnancy is a major cause of still birth, blindness, deafness, mental handicap and of the higher risks of developing chronic diseases in later life. The costs to the Treasury of ill health and educational under-achievement start in the womb. While it is obviously right for government health policies to tackle heart disease, cancer and mental health, nevertheless, prevention through adequate minimum incomes in pregnancy needs looking at.
Some of the other findings of the confidential inquiry are also pertinent. The risk of sudden infant deaths was higher the lower the family income. Twice as many families experiencing sudden infant deaths as control families received income support. A striking feature of the study was a strong association of both explained and unexplained deaths with extreme poverty and socio-economic deprivation. Parents were younger, less well educated, had lower incomes, were more likely to be unemployed and lived in less suitable housing, which was commonly overcrowded. Mothers were less likely to have a supportive partner than were the mothers of control infants. Families suffered the effects of multiple deprivation. A consistent thread through many of the cases was a background of social chaos, often coupled with abject poverty.
A similar association exists between childhood mortality and morbidity. While childhood mortality rates have fallen, the social class differentials persist. Infant mortality rate for social class V births was 70 per cent higher than social class I births.
Childhood morbidity, too, for certain diseases such as respiratory problems is rising and health inequality between class groups is widening. From the time they are born, young children have a very different experience of factors hazardous to their health. The health risks experienced is influenced powerfully by social position.
I support many of the pleas made by several noble Lords to the Government. Although I recognise much that the Government are doing to help the socially disadvantaged, I hope that they will do more.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I, too, am most grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this important topic for debate. It is of vital concern to disabled people and is so wide-ranging in its impact on us that today I shall concentrate on one area.
The Secretary of State for Education and Employment said in a speech last year,
"In the end it will be work that protects people from poverty".
If that is the case, there is a significant group of disabled people—those who need personal assistance in order to work—who are being left out of current government policies.
Disabled people are twice as likely as non-disabled people to be unemployed and, once unemployed, find it harder to get back into work. As John Knight and Martine Brent quoted in their report on disabled people's experience of social exclusion, 41 per cent of those surveyed agreed that,
"It's virtually impossible to get a job if you're disabled".
The Government's New Deal and other programmes aim to increase the number of disabled people in employment and to reduce the financial disincentives to work which have sometimes been created by the benefit system. However, recent policy initiatives have neglected to tackle a significant barrier to employment experienced by many disable people; a barrier which has been called "the personal assistance trap".
People who need help just to get up in the morning, be washed and dressed and go about their daily lives are increasingly being charged for these basic necessities once their income and savings rise above the most meagre levels. These are the people whom many would regard as the most severely disabled and therefore the most in need. In a recent interview the Minister, Hugh Bayley, said that the Government hold the view that disabled people ought to pay for "social care". It is the Government's policy on charging and means testing for this care which is creating severe financial disincentives to personal assistance users who want too work.
The irony is that over the past 30 years new technology with such possibilities as voice operated computers has opened up the world of employment to people with even the highest support needs. Successive governments' policies have also provided alternatives to residential care and dependence on families so that severely disabled people are now able to hold down a job and live independently with support in their own homes.
People who need a significant amount of personal assistance to go about their daily lives can look to two main sources of help: either cash payments in the form of direct payments from the local authority and the Independent Living Fund or direct services provided by local health and social services such as home care. All of them have financial disincentives to work and particularly to any form of advancement. ILF payments are means tested and so increasingly are

1285
direct payments. There are only five local authorities in the country which do not charge for home care services. Mine is one of them—Hammersmith and Fulham—and now it is proposing to charge £5 an hour to anyone with savings or income of £16,000.
Until January, ILF clients in employment were able to earn only £30 above the level of income support before deductions were made for their care. This also applied to their partner's income. Not surprisingly, with this major disincentive to work, only 100 out of the 5,000 severely disabled people helped by the ILF have managed to find jobs.
These means-tested rules have now been relaxed to allow clients to keep 45 per cent of their earnings between £30 and £200 a week. Above that figure, they still have to pay everything they earn towards the full cost of their care. While this relaxation is welcome, it still means that severely disabled people are being forced to pay 55 per cent tax on part of their income. That is on top of income tax, council tax, business rates and VAT.
The maximum payable has also been raised to around £30,000 a year. This can be made to sound a generous amount for disabled people; that is, until you recognise that it is purely wages for other people—other taxpayers. As Paul Matthews, a small businessman employing 24-hour assistance, put it:
"I employ nearly 30 people and yet every single one of them earns more money than I am allowed to keep!"
I believe that there should be no means testing or charging for personal support services. If an individual patient costs the health service £30,000 a year, we do not demand, if they are working, that they contribute to the costs of their healthcare. Nor do we give refunds to those without children or charge extra for education services to those with several. Surely it is for the good of a healthy, just society that we should all contribute to the cost of providing personal support services to those whose lives would not be viable or would be intolerable without them.
To means test such support provides a powerful disincentive to work and save for people who already face enormous extra costs. The Government cannot tackle social exclusion for this group, nor can they be truly effective in getting disabled people and carers into, or back to, work without addressing the whole infrastructure of personal support.
The inquiry of the Select Committee on Education and Employment, Opportunities for Disabled People, published on 24th November last year, concluded that,
"disabled people with high support needs who wish to work face considerable financial disincentives".
It recommended that the Government establish a cross-departmental working party to examine a range of options within the tax and benefits system that might ease "the personal assistance trap". The Government have not yet taken up this recommendation. I urge them to do so.
6.52 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, I should like to join with other noble Lords in thanking my
1286
noble friend Lord Russell for initiating this very important debate. As my title implies, I come from Guildford, which is hardly the most deprived area of this country. However, even in Guildford there are pockets of deprivation.
I am a governor of a small primary school located on one of Guildford's council estates. It is a one-form entry primary school. Thirty per cent of the children attending the school have special educational needs and many have behavioural problems. They come from a variety of homes, of which quite a number are broken homes. There is a high proportion of single parents, which brings the constant problem of new boyfriends moving in and of kids being resented by those new boyfriends. Many of the families are on benefit. An acute drugs problem exists on the estate. A large number of children qualify for free school meals. These are all indicators of deprivation.
Unfortunately, the school has not been able to attract enough pupils. Funding depends upon children being admitted and so the school is now under threat of closure. Since this possibility was announced and we entered into the rigmarole of procedure to react to the announcement, behavioural problems among the kids have shown an enormous upsurge. For many of those kids the school represents an oasis of stability in lives full of instability. The children get from their teachers a certain amount of tender loving care which they do not get in their homes. They are extremely vulnerable children. I believe it is vitally important that. if at all possible, such an oasis of stability should be provided for them.
Should we lose those children at this early stage, we know quite well what will happen to them. They will become truants in secondary school. They will truant only marginally in the first two or three years and then they will drop out of the system completely. We also know that the minimum cost of sending such children to special schools is £45,000 a year per child. Against that, the cost of £25,000 to fund one extra teacher in a small primary school could be well worth while.
Some noble Lords will know that I have been thrown into the proceedings on the Learning and Skills Bill which is currently going through the House. Further education is not an area about which I knew a great deal, but I have entered a steep learning curve over the past few weeks. Studying for the Second Reading and Committee stage of the Bill has led me to take on a large amount of reading around the subject. Among the material was a study by the Social Exclusion Unit entitled, Bridging the Gap. I should like to read out to the House one or two paragraphs from the report to illustrate the problem of young people who drop out of the system. Among the main conclusions of the report, it states:
"There is a clear structure for those who do best at school: full-time study for a further two years, leading to entry into higher education or reasonably skilled and secure employment, with the prospect of good career development in the years ahead. The achievement of high status qualifications and entry into the places they lead to provide a clear goal, and what can be seen as a 'rite of passage' …

1287
The passage through the 16–18 years for those who have not achieved the success in school needed to enter these routes, or for whom personal or family problems, or poverty, get in the way of it—disproportionately people who come from backgrounds featuring a variety of kinds of social exclusion—is, by comparison, confused and lacking in clear goals and transition points. It offers less structure than the New Deal offers to older unemployed young people …
The young people involved are disproportionately from poor backgrounds in deprived areas. They may suffer multiple disadvantage and few recover from the poor start that they have had. The report shows that where life goes wrong, or continues to go wrong, for young people in this age group, social exclusion in later life is disproportionately the result".
So, what about the New Deal? Is the New Deal helping such young people? No, because it is not aimed at 16 to 18 year-olds. As we know, many young people, having drifted into petty crime, drugs and so forth, have come off the register. Once that has happened, they are no longer eligible for the New Deal. Unless at some point they are once again picked up by the education and training system—I shall return to that point shortly—almost by definition, they will not be helped by the New Deal.
Many such young people, and in particular those from areas like Guildford, drift towards London. For that reason, London has a disproportionate number of young people who have come off the register. In addition, London has been experiencing real problems with the New Deal. Some 22 of the 26 New Deal areas with the highest percentage of young people leaving the New Deal system for unknown destinations are based in London. A government-sponsored study of what happens to New Deal participants shows that only 25 per cent of those who left the New Deal system found continuous employment; 40 per cent who found work were unemployed six months later; 31 per cent had left the scheme without attending a single interview; 55 per cent of those who had left the scheme were unemployed six months later and 19 per cent of those were not claiming benefit.
The Demos study of the socially excluded suggested that the New Deal was not helping very much. It was exacerbating the point because, if one comes off the New Deal in this way, one may incur sanctions and not be able to claim benefit. The Demos study warned that young people simply will not be fed through a programme.
A BBC "File on Four" programme last summer featured a fellow called Paul. He was a New Deal client who considered leaving the scheme early or not cooperating with it. When asked about the consequences, he said, "I'll end up getting my benefit stopped". When asked what he would do then, he replied, "I'll do what everyone else does—most probably go out and rob or something. Know what I mean? To get money. Or I'll just go sick".
The Government are addressing that issue. Last week they published a rather splendid document called Connexions. It has a lovely, jazzy cover and concerns a new service which is trying to pick up 16 to 18 year-olds. I believe that that is a vitally important job because we must not let them drift in this way. The
1288
service proposes that the Careers Service, as it now is, is reoriented towards social exclusion and that we develop a new generation or class of people who will be mentors on a highly labour-intensive, one-to-10 basis. As I say, I believe that that is admirable in intent.
I shall read a little about what the service says will happen. It gives an example of a boy called Ahmed whose parents have split up in his final year at school. As a consequence, he does not do as well in his GCSEs as expected. He fails to take up his modern apprenticeship and does not have a job. He drifts in the streets with the 16 to 17 year-olds, and, of course, the great danger is that he will take part in petty crime. The Connexions document states:
"In the future: The Connexions Service would identify that Ahmed had not taken up his Modern Apprenticeship placement and would make contact with him. He would be encouraged to work with a Personal Adviser who would support his needs. The Personal Adviser would be able to develop a package of support for Ahmed to enable him to take up a Modern Apprenticeship placement; this could include confidence building, exploring his feelings in relation to his family, retaking a couple of GCSEs and providing a mentor. They would also be able to organise accommodation for Ahmed should the situation with his mother not improve".
Admirable. Splendid. However, I believe that it is most important to bear in mind that Demos said that young people will not simply be fed through a programme.
That brings me back to my little primary school. It is essential that as far as possible we act when those children are young. It is essential to bring together these facilities. Quite frankly, it is worth spending £25,000 now to save many, many thousands of pounds of expenditure later.
7.3 p.m.
Lord Beaumont of Whitley: My Lords, the person who is 23rd on the Speakers' List on a day such as this must spend three-and-a-half hours worrying about whether the point that he is going to make will have been made far better by others before him. When he reaches the stage of rising to his feet and realises that it has not been made, he has another worry: that possibly the point has not been raised because it is not worth making! I hope that what I shall say in this debate is something new and is a point worth making. I believe that I can produce some evidence to that effect.
Those of us who were in serious politics in the 1960s were under the illusion that the lessons of the 1930s had been learnt and that never again would we see serious poverty taking over a whole section of society, continuing generation after generation and, if anything, increasing. Yet, such is the case today. The corollary, as everyone knows and as the Rowntree report makes clear and as speaker after speaker has said, is ill health, child suffering and crime.
The answer of the mainstream parties is to juggle a marginal tax rate here and attract inward investment there. Of course, I exaggerate, but it is along those lines. In doing that, they neglect the fact that the whole economic system which now governs most of the world is geared to reducing as much as possible the costs of production. The inevitable result is that the rich get richer and the poor get poorer; there is a dramatic split

1289
between the comfortably off who receive better education and more and more interesting work, and the poor who receive worse education and less and less interesting work.
Incidentally, that almost universal tendency has a devastating effect on politics today. I believe that it is as a result of that that the Conservative Party, whatever its achievements, has ceased to conserve; the Labour Party as a whole, in spite of the number of speakers on the Benches opposite who have shown real compassion today, seems to have ceased to be the champion of the poor.
However, surely what is needed is not the marginal charges to which I have referred but a complete acceptance of the need for drastic and revolutionary action. At the very least, we need serious, redistributed taxation. But probably we need much more than that. We must accept the fact that modern technology means that we can divorce economic security from wealth creation. For a long time, many of us believed that the answer lies in the concept of "citizen's income".
The noble Lord, Lord Desai, who has just entered the Chamber and who, I very much regret, was unable to take part in this debate, was one of those who believed in citizen's income. For a long time, the Liberal Democrat Party was in favour. I well recall the unparalleled tears of rage with which Lady Seear—for so long a very respected leader of our party in this House—greeted the successful and, as she thought, intellectually dishonest efforts to abandon it. I, and the Green Party wk.ch I represent, have that as a serious plank of our policy.
This is not the time or the place to argue the undoubtedly complex issues involved. I shall quote briefly from a pamphlet by that very distinguished writer, James Robertson:
"Support for [Citizen's Income] continues to grow, especially in Britain and Western Europe. A recent study … showed that a full Citizen's Income could be introduced in Ireland over a period of three budgets. It would result in nobody receiving less than the poverty line of income; all unemployment and poverty traps being eliminated; and it always being worthwhile for an unemployed person to take up a job".
There is an intellectual case for citizen's income. However, for the most part, I am content merely to point out that your Lordships have already solved the problem. This Chamber provides satisfying jobs for its Members which are worth while and which stretch us. It pays us for them through an attendance allowance—not, possibly, a citizen's income and certainly not what would have been considered to be a nobleman's income in another age, when a Peer, having to sack his pastry cook, asked, "Can't a fella have his biscuit?" However, it provides a source of income which allows many of us to do this job and make ourselves available for it. Ceteris paribus, this is not at all a bad pattern for what employment should and could eventually be in the whole of society. What is good enough for us is possibly good enough for the socially excluded of this nation.
7.9 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, first, it is a privilege to wind up from these Benches after a debate such as this. We must all thank my noble friend Lord Russell, not only for initiating the debate but for so tellingly introducing the subject. Few of us can match the depth or deftness of his analysis. He has given us the opportunity to cover a broad range of issues today. I believe that your Lordships will agree that the debate has succeeded admirably in its purpose in bringing forward many of the issues raised by the Rowntree report.
I should like to take a few examples of the issues mentioned during the debate. We have the broad issue of income inequalities and poverty. There are the bare statistics that those below 40 per cent of average income have increased by more than 1 million since 1995. Our income inequalities have risen faster than anywhere, except New Zealand, in recent years.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner of Camden, and the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, raised the issue of child poverty and how that has increased over the years. My noble friend Lord Russell raised benefit penalties and disentitlement issues. My noble friend Lord Ezra raised the key issue of fuel poverty and housing problems, including the problem of housing quality. The noble Lords, Lord Rea and Lord Patel, raised issues of public health, poor health and health inequalities.
The noble Baroness, Lady Turner, also raised the impact of poverty on crime and levels of imprisonment. A number of your Lordships raised particular issues relating to groups within the community. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, and my noble friend Lady Sharp of Guildford raised the issue of inequalities among the young. Older people were the subject of the speech of my noble friend. Lady Barker. My noble friend Lord Russell originally raised the issues of inequalities among the ethnic minority communities, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Howells of St Davids. The noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, raised issues of inequality among women.
Then we had a whole series of speeches relating to particular communities, such as the mining communities raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Gale, as well as rural communities, raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, and my noble friend Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer. My noble friend Lord Bradshaw raised a number of transport issues relating to those rural communities, as well as other issues, such as public services and amenities.
Then, of course, the noble Countess, Lady Mar, raised particular conditions and the inequalities suffered by those with CFS/ME, organophosphate poisoning and Gulf War illnesses. I have considerable sympathy with her over the issues that she raised.
In some ways the most worrying aspects were those raised by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham. There was, for example, the question of the geographical concentration of social exclusion and poverty in particular areas.

1291
Before I try to pull together the strands of some of the conclusions that your Lordships came to, I should like to concentrate for a few moments on health inequalities and other health issues, since they relate to my own interests.
Differences in mortality rates between those at the top and those at the bottom of the economic social scale have widened in the past 20 years. They are very heavily influenced by geographical differences. The figures for low birth weights have worsened in exactly the same way. Similarly, obesity is very strongly affected by social and economic class.
The Acheson report of 1998 remains at the core of the public health debate. It suffered from the disadvantage of not being costed or prioritised, but it performed a valuable role in reminding us of the reasons for health inequalities and of what action should be taken. In my view, the key recommendation was the third: that there should be action to reduce income inequalities and improve living standards of households in receipt of social security benefits. Basically, the conclusion was that benefit levels were inadequate to maintain good health. The public health White Paper published the following spring said that the story of health inequality was clear: the poorer a person is, the more likely he or she is to be ill and die younger.
But there was considerable disappointment with the Government's response to the Acheson Committee. There were key targets relating to cancer, mental illness, cardiac disease and accidents, but it was not clear, despite the fact that the link to social conditions was accepted, that there was any kind of poverty target. Without such targets, Acheson now risks the same fate as the Black report.
I acknowledge that the context has changed. The last government would not even allow the use of the word "inequalities" in their documents about health; they would respond only to "health variations". So we have made some progress.
A recent report on cot deaths highlighted the link to poverty again. One in 200 of low income families—a parent under 25 and unsupported by a partner—suffers a cot death, compared with one in 8,500 in families where the parent is over 25 and supported by a partner.
The UN Development Programme now considers the UK to be one of the most unequal industrialised countries in the world. The UK has seen the greatest growth of social inequality of any European country in recent years.
Low income is the greatest risk factor when it comes to ill health. This has been clear since 1837, when the first Superintendent of Statistics, William Farr, published his report. But it has always been an unpopular message. Edwin Chadwick had to publish his 1842 report, Condition of the Labouring Population, himself when the Poor Law Commission refused to do so. The Black report in 1980 was similarly buried.
1292
The Widening Gap report, published just last month, said that poverty levels in Britain were far too high for us to expect to see inequalities in health fall. The authors' conclusion was that changes in social security under previous governments had directly led to greater inequalities and specifically greater health inequalities. The report's conclusion was that the poorest 20 per cent would be 20 per cent better off if the previous government had not reduced social security benefits, and that the ratio of the richest to poorest 20 per cent would have been reduced from 9:1 to 5:1. That is an extraordinary figure.
To their credit, the present Government have recognised that action needs to be taken across the board. The former Secretary of State for Health, Frank Dobson, said on 17th March 1999:
"Promoting better health is not just a matter for the NHS or for social services. This is a job for the whole government, joined up government. All the Cabinet are working together to tackle the things that make people ill".
He also recognised that:
"Poverty is a principal source of ill health. Poor people are ill more often and die sooner".
As Acheson suggested, there should above all be concentration on the first five years of life. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, graphically illustrated, correlations between low birth weight babies and future poverty and under-achievement are absolutely clear. We on these Benches welcome the Prime Minister's promise to eliminate child poverty by 2020. That is reflected in the first annual report on tackling poverty and social exclusion, but we are not convinced that the targets are very challenging.
I want to come on to some of the points made by your Lordships, particularly the welcome given to some of the Government's actions, apart from the targets concerning child poverty.
We have the question of the increase in child benefit and the recent notification of the increase in minimum wage. Indeed, we have the principle—the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Coity, was extremely eloquent on this subject—of the establishment of the minimum wage. We have some of the transport initiatives that my noble friend Lord Bradshaw reported. There is the New Deal, but I suggest that the Minister take note of the devastating criticism of aspects of the New Deal by my noble friend Baroness Sharp.
There are some of the very impressive initiatives from the New Opportunities Fund mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley. There are the social regeneration projects to which the right reverend Prelate referred. There is also the work of the Social Exclusion Unit. I see today that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, has been given the task of coordinating poverty policies for the Government, which of course must be welcomed. But the jury is out. We do not yet know the impact of many of these policies. Your Lordships have made it very clear today that what has been done so far is, quite frankly, not enough.
During the course of the debate, a number of important aspects have been raised. My noble friend Lord Russell raised the issue of research, as did the

1293
noble Baroness, Lady Crawley. Much better research is needed. We need to mend the holes in the safety net. We need minimum standards for access to services, as my noble friend Lady Miller advocated. My noble friend Lady Barker referred to the whole issue of age discrimination.
A number of issues were raised in relation to the voluntary sector, the regional focus and the presentation of policies to which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Durham referred. Those are all extremely important matters. The need for improved insulation was raised, as were all sorts of issues surrounding transport and housing.
But the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford stressed the problem of poverty. That is the principal reason for the inequalities that we have been debating today. We need major improvements to the benefits system. There needs to be a change in our attitudes and we must not, as my noble friend Lord Russell said, denigrate benefits. There must be a sense of urgency, as many noble Lords have said. We cannot wait for the grand design to take effect, as the right reverend Prelate said. We must target tax and benefits with the minimum stigma. We need minimum income standards. We also need to be intensely practical.
The Prime Minister said that if the next Labour Government have not raised the living standards of the poorest by the end of their time in office, they will have failed. But there are conflicting messages coming from the Government. Listen to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, Stephen Byers: the reality is that wealth creation is now more important than wealth distribution. Yet we read this Monday that redistribution, the "R" word, is coming back into vogue. What is the reality? Perhaps the Minister can tell us. Do the Government believe that increasing the tax burden for the 'well-off and raising benefits for the poorest is a policy option?
Previous Labour governments did not recognise adequately the need for wealth creation. This Government have rightly reacted against that. However, in doing so, they have lost sight of the need for redistribution. Until the Government recognise that wealth creation and redistribution go hand in hand, then the problems of poverty and inequality will not be solved.
7.21 p.m.
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for introducing this timely debate. Like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, it is a great privilege for me to wind up the debate for my party.
The debate has been informative and constructive and there is agreement in all corner; of the House that we must work together to eradicate poverty and social exclusion. As my noble friend Lord Lucas said, they cause immense human suffering. Although I shall be critical tonight of the Government's policies and lack of direction, I have no doubt that the Minister is as personally committed as the rest of us to do everything
1294
she can to alleviate those concerns. But I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that the Labour Party appears to have ceased to be the champion of the poor.
On these Benches, we have some concern about the term "social exclusion". It suggests that there is a deliberate attempt to exclude certain parts of society. We believe it is more helpful to look at those areas which suffer high unemployment and crime, poor housing, weak family links and high rates of welfare dependency and to understand their real causes and effects.
There is also a clear philosophical difference in approach between the Government and these Benches. The Government favour state intervention and state prescription to solve those problems. However, we believe that the key point is to have an economy which is vibrant and robust and which generates opportunities for employment and wealth creation. It is only by creating wealth in the first place that it is ever possible for it to be shared.
The timing of this debate must be hugely embarrassing for the Government. My noble friend Lady Byford pointed out the article in the Telegraph. The Minister will probably tell me it is all rubbish. She just has. But the Government's poverty policy has apparently been condemned as a shambles by a Cabinet Office report which says that there are too many initiatives and no strategy or co-ordination.
What is more worrying about today's article is the report that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Falconer, is to be given a prominent role in integrating the many regional initiatives, as the so-called "zone tsar". After the fiasco of the Millennium Dome, that hardly bodes well. Will the Minister indicate what his role and responsibilities are to be? I have not given the Minister notice of that question but I should be grateful if she will write to me. We have given her a copy of the newspaper article.
The timing of the Rowntree report was inconvenient for the Government as it came days after they launched a Cabinet Office report entitled Sharing the Nation's Prosperity, dismissing the existence of the north-south divide.
The Rowntree report shows that twice as many people are receiving benefits in the north-east as in the south-east. Indeed, one of the authors contradicted the Cabinet Office report, telling the Daily Mirror that,
"there is no doubt there is a strong North-South divide".
The Minister will probably say that the Rowntree report fails to take account of new government policies. But the report says clearly and starkly that the problems continue unabated.
The Minister will also probably say, "It is all the fault of the Tories as this report covers the period before our reforms were introduced". But one of the authors told the Northern Echo:
"The Government didn't start introducing its main measures until at least 2 years after it come to power and, if it had got going earlier, we might be beginning to see the benefits now".
One of New Labour's main pledges was to tackle social exclusion. The figures in that report are a damning indictment of two-and-a-half years of

1295
government by sound-bite, with few effective measures being taken. It reveals an enormous credibility gap between the Government's rhetoric on social policy and the reality of life in some areas of Britain. One only has to mention the former junior Defence Minister, the Member for Liverpool Walton, for the Government's spin doctors to go into overdrive.
It would be impossible to cover all the issues relevant to this subject. However, I wish to concentrate on two specific areas which are relevant to the report—social problems in rural Britain and the plight of lone parents.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the problems in the countryside. My noble friend Lady Byford drew the House's attention to the Cabinet Office report Economic, Social and Environmental Conditions in the Countryside. In its election manifesto, new Labour said that it recognised the special needs of people who live and work in rural areas and that the Conservatives did not. That seems rather at odds with the humiliating local authority by-election and European election results which New Labour has endured in rural areas since May 1997.
Ministers and their spin doctors seem to forget that behind the statistics are tragic stories of human misery, bankruptcy and suicide not seen in our countryside for generations. Bureaucracy, uncertainty, increased fuel prices, growing crime levels, declining services and declining access to services all blight the lives of families in country areas. It is no wonder that the Prime Minister was booed as he left the NFU's annual meeting. At least this time no one had a chocolate éclair to hand.
The Government have set up a task force to deal with the problems of urban areas. In view of the devastating crisis in the countryside, will the Government consider setting up a rural task force? After all, 60 local authorities have urged the Government to do just that.
I turn to the group with the highest prevalence of poverty: one-parent families. It is a depressing statistic that three in five lone parents in the United Kingdom live in poverty. Lone parents have overtaken pensioners as the group with the lowest average income. On current benefits, lone parents who have lived in poverty for some time cannot afford to eat healthily. Lone mothers are 14 times more likely than other mothers to go without food themselves in order to meet the needs of their children. Many experience severe hardship, poor housing, health problems, lack of access to financial services and debt. The removal of the lone parent rate of family premium in April 1999 reduced housing benefit and council tax benefit for lone parents in paid work and for lone parents moving from income support into paid work.
Despite the Labour election manifesto pledging effective help for lone parents, the Government's own estimates for last year showed that up to 395,000 will have lost out. Working lone parents faced maximum average national losses of £10.20 per week. The losses in housing benefit and council tax benefit alone amounted to as much as £9.35 for some lone parents.
1296
According to the Child Poverty Action Group and the Microsimulation Unit of the Department of Applied Economics at Cambridge, after three budgets a considerable proportion of lone-parent families in the poorest income groups are worse off than they would be under policy existing prior to the 1997 election.
For most lone parents and their children, the most effective route out of poverty is getting a job. The Minister made that point last night. Indeed, most lone parents want to work at some time. That means real jobs in the real world rather than subsidised placements that are no more than an artificial attempt to help the Government to meet their next publicised target.
Given the rate at which housing benefit and council tax benefit are withdrawn as income rises, lone parents going out to work can lose up to 85 per cent of the extra income from the working families' tax credit. On top of that, when they move into work, lone parents' expenditure on travel and clothing increases and they lose the right to claim "passported benefits" such as free prescriptions, sight tests and free schools meals.
Our current system means that many lone parents simply cannot afford to enter education because student loans are treated by the DSS as income rather than debt. Furthermore, those lone parents who manage to graduate from university and enter employment will find themselves using their WFTC to repay their student loans. What plans do the Government have to address that issue and ensure that lone parents have equality of access to further education?
We on these Benches recognise that to tackle the symptoms of social exclusion takes a realistic and intelligent appraisal of the changes in society and the economy. We need cogent and sensible policy-making that promotes opportunities for people to move out of poverty through private sector job creation, wider home ownership and community-led solutions on health, education and law and order. We need to extend opportunities for all and not reinforce the culture of dependency that has done so much to reinforce the present problems.
What is clear is the failure of this Government meaningfully to tackle poverty and social exclusion. This is not political point scoring, when so many of the Government's own supporters are voicing their concerns at the lack of co-ordination and insight into how to tackle these problems.
Unlike my noble friend Lord Lucas, I cannot congratulate the Government. They need to do much more to tackle these issues and do so in a more coherent, integrated and intelligent manner.
7.34 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I join other noble Lords in thanking the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for initiating the debate. I should also like to thank—at least I think so—the young researchers of the

1297
Rowntree report for doing their best to hold us up to the mark, however uncomfortable that may be on occasion.
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, vigorously described the major contributions tonight, which to some extent spares me the time in doing that. However, I thank your Lordships for a fascinating, wide-ranging debate. It ranged from small, rural buses to VAT on village halls; from Welsh devolution (your Lordships will not be surprised if I duck that) to the Independent Living Fund and CFS sufferers, all more or less—sometimes less—related to the Rowntree report. Noble Lords will understand if I seek to answer those points primarily related to the report. I, or my colleagues. will seek to respond by correspondence to some of the other points raised.
Noble Lords all agree that far too many people are living on low incomes. The numbers of people on low income, defined as a proportion of the population living in households with below half mean average incomes, or about 60 per cent median incomes, increased dramatically between 1979 and 1996–97 from one household in 10 to one in four: from 5 million to 14 million people. That is also as much about widening inequality as about poverty, which may mark us off from some of the Scandinavian countries rightly quoted by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford.
Worse than that, however, is the fact that many people spend long periods living on a low income. Around one in 10 of the population spent all seven years between 1991 and 1997 living on a low income; that is in the three bottom deciles of the income distribution. They were in persistent poverty, which scars health, aspiration, prospects and self-esteem. Therefore, low income, and in particular the problem of persistent low income, is fundamental to poverty and social exclusion.
However, we also know that the problems of poverty and social exclusion are related to a wider range of factors than simply low incomes. Just as welfare is more than simply social security, so people's access to good quality housing and public services has a major impact on their standard of living. To quote the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, that is what in the sixties we used to call "the social wage".
There is no easy way to tackle problems of poverty and social exclusion. Despite the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Astor, we are acting to raise the incomes of the poorest and seeking to row back on the deprivation we have inherited over the past 15 years. We have improved the income of those most in need for pensioners, children and families most at risk of being trapped on low incomes for long periods of time.
However, as we can see by looking at the experience of the past 20 years, poverty cannot be eradicated by just raising benefits. That may be one of the profound points of difference between myself and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I believe he stated that it is not the business of the benefit system to get people into jobs but to keep them fit and well until they get jobs. I hope I have quoted him correctly; I certainly do not mean to
1298
misquote him. That passive approach, which I deplore, is precisely why over the past 20 years we have seen expenditure on benefits double and so at the same time have poverty and social exclusion. That response has not worked and is not one we shall seek to perpetuate.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has quoted me accurately. If she is able to explain why this increase in poverty and social exclusion was caused, in her opinion, by the passivity of the benefits system, I would understand something which at present I do not.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am not sure that I shall be able to satisfy the noble Earl by responding tonight. However, perhaps I may put it another way. I did some "ready reckoner" SUMS. We could increase all benefits by £10 per week. That would be useful and might pay for an extra couple of pints of milk and a yoghurt each day, or two cinema tickets at the end of the week. However, people would still be poor. Only a small proportion would go over and above half-average incomes. Passively to increase benefits and do little else would cost perhaps an estimated £20 billion— indeed, as much as we spend on schools and as much as we spend on hospitals—and people would still be poor. That is my response to the noble Earl. That pattern has not, and will not, work.
We must address not just what I would call the "presenting" problems of poverty—for example, low income, about which we do not disagree—but also the reasons for it. We must do so by improving employment prospects, by reforming public services and by helping people to save for their retirement. That cannot be done quickly. In order to improve employment opportunities for those of working age we must not only help this generation of working age people but also ensure that all children leave school with the skills that they need to survive in the modern labour market. To improve pensioners' incomes in the future we need to ensure that all working age people save for their retirement now.
Our key public services are suffering from decades of neglect and cannot be turned around overnight. It is a long-term strategy. Low incomes, poor education, poor health and criminality, all of which have been mentioned tonight, affect the same people and the same places. I have in mind the poorest communities that have been drifting further and further away from the rest of Britain.
The right reverend Prelate was absolutely right to say that geography matters. For example, the poorest 284 wards in England and Wales, with a population of 2.5 million, have nearly half—45 per cent—of the working population inactive and unemployed, compared to half that figure for England and Wales as a whole. They also experience double the rate of deprivation, and yet—this is where the problem begins to present itself to government—half of our fellow citizens who are poor do not live in poor areas. Therefore, we need targeted help and we need to work in partnership with local authorities; indeed, the sort

1299
of work and help that my noble friend Lady Pitkeathley is doing in chairing the New Opportunities Board. We need targeted help but we also need national help.
In quoting the article from the Daily Telegraph on regional strategy, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, said that that targeted help was in chaos. That is absurd. With a dozen or so pilot zones, budgets, agencies and initiatives, the Government have recognised that the time now is right to strengthen the co-ordinating structures between those initiatives. I hope that I am not misquoting him, but I believe the chief executive of Sandwell council said that he had "one of everything". However, most of the time we receive complaints from city councils that they do not have one of everything and, indeed, that they have "not enough" of most things.
The need to balance the targeting on some of our rural and poorest communities, especially those belonging to the old mining, shipyard and steel communities, with national strategies informs government action. Key groups—such as lone teenage mothers—suffer from multiple problems of low incomes, lack of work, few skills, poor health and poor prospects—so the Social Exclusion Unit is both looking at "communities of exclusion", if I may use that phrase, as well as at the geographies of exclusion in trying to bring them back into the mainstream of our society.
Poverty and social exclusion are also about the lack of prospects, opportunities, self-worth and self-esteem. I remember a social worker friend of mine telling me some 30 years ago that the biggest problem for poor people is the low self-esteem that they have. Life happens to them; they do not control it. We need only compare a student studying for a university degree with an unskilled lone parent who has been out of work for many years: they have identical incomes but totally unidentical prospects. As I said, being poor is when your life is something that happens to you. You do not own your opportunities. You do not own your future.
Who are the poor? They are not primarily pensioners—I will return to the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, later—because well over 70 per cent of pensioners now have over half the average income. The number of pensioners in the bottom fifth between 1979 and 1996–97 has halved from 47 per cent to 24 per cent, which is actually lower than the proportion applying to the population as a whole. So the poor are not pensioners, although there are some poor pensioners.
The poor are not primarily adults of working age because 80 per cent of those are on incomes of above half average earnings. However, some adults of working age, especially women and lone parents, are very poor. They are not primarily disabled people. Again, nearly 80 per cent of disabled people have earnings or incomes of above half the average income. If they are not pensioners, adults of working age or disabled people, who are the poor? As my noble friend
1300
Lady Gale said, the poor in this country are children. Indeed, one-third of all children are poor. The face of poverty in this country is the face of a child.
By 1996–97, one in three children lived in households with below average incomes—three times the rate of 1979. By the mid-1990s the UK had one of the highest proportions of children in relative poverty. I know that we are also talking about inequality, but, nonetheless, that represents one of the highest proportions in the European Union. By the end of that period, families with children were more likely to be living in low-income households than any other group. What an inheritance for those children, as well as for an incoming government!
As the Prime Minister said:
"Our historic aim will be for ours to be the first generation to end child poverty … it is a 20-year mission".
The Chancellor of the Exchequer went even further, when he said:
"It is not enough to tackle absolute poverty and simply prevent destitution. We should do more. It is not fair that children should be disadvantaged from the start of their lives because of who their parents are, what school they go to [and] where they live".
Therefore, we have introduced a wide range of measures to improve the incomes of low-income families. I hope that that will engage with that "travesty"—if I may call it that—of our record so far, as presented by the noble Lord from the Opposition Benches. I think that he was teasing us. But just in case he was not, I shall try to address his points more seriously.
The combined impact of the financial measures introduced in the Budgets of 1998 and 1999 will raise the incomes of the poorest fifth of families with children by £1,000 a year. On average, households gained from the three Labour Budgets by about 5 per cent, but those in the bottom fifth gained by nearly double that figure. Those families with children in the bottom fifth gained by three times or 15 per cent. That is a significant achievement in just a couple of years by any judgment: £4 billion extra pounds has gone to families with children and about two-fifths of that sum has gone to those in the greatest poverty.
I could give noble Lords a dozen examples, but I shall give just one. For children under the age of 11 in workless families the value of the income support allowance has risen in two years from £16.90 to £24.90; in other words, it has risen by 50 per cent in that time. I hope that no one will accuse us of neglecting properly to address the issue of child poverty within our resources.
Our strategy is not just to improve the incomes of low-income families with children but also to tackle the causes of that low income. We know that those children who are poor suffer from a double disadvantage. First, they live in fractured families; and, secondly, they live in workless families. The noble Lords, Lord Lucas and Lord Northbourne, rightly drew our attention to the problems of children in fractured families. They reminded us that children need the support of both parents, even if they do not remain married. We know from all the research that

1301
we have on the outcomes for children of lone parents that the daughter of a lone parent is likely to flourish if her mother is in work and, similarly, that the son of a lone parent is likely to flourish if he is in contact with his natural father. Those are our best predictors of breaking the cycle of deprivation which those children would otherwise inherit.
We also seek to overcome the problems of poverty among children and to overcome the problems of persistent poverty. For example, in 1998 over 800,000 children lived in families that had spent at least five years on means-tested benefits. Moreover, 2.2 million children—almost a fifth—live in families without work. Again, we have the worst record in this respect of any country in the EU. Children are spending large parts of their childhood living in households where no adult goes to work and where, all too often, there is only one adult in the family. As I said, they suffer a double deprivation which if we do not intervene will scar them for life.
All the research shows—and there has been no dissent on this tonight—that work is the best and most secure route out of poverty for families. Finding work helps to lift people out of poverty, while long periods out of work decrease the chances that parents will return to work. Therefore, when we seek to help lone parents and disabled people back into work, we know that we need to tackle the issues of childcare, the fear of the risk of losing benefit, poor health, low human capital, low motivation, poor skins, poor financial incentives and lack of knowledge about available jobs. We are trying to work across the whole of that waterfront.
Our New Deal for lone parents seeks to help lone mothers, particularly lone mothers who wish to return to work. As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, has suggested—and as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford has asked—we seek to adapt the benefit system in order to sustain that movement into work. Lone parents are understandably reluctant to take jobs that do not pay. The new working families' tax credit, with its generous childcare tax allowance, will improve the incentives to work. As a result, the financial benefit for a family entering work, taking a typical entry wage job, has increased from a net gain of £30 a week to nearer £42 a week. Together with reforms to income tax and to NICs, the WFTC could increase employment by 47,000 over one year and by as much as nearly 300,000 over the long term.
Apart from the problem of low income, we need also to tackle the wider problems of housing and health because they exacerbate each other, as many of your Lordships have said tonight. Just to take one example, we know that nearly half of all lone parents smoke. That is twice the national average for young people. They are poor because they smoke; they smoke because they are poor. A quarter of lone parents have limiting illnesses mainly associated with smoking, and so do their children. Some 75 per cent of the illnesses of the children of lone parents are respiratory related and correlated with their parents' smoking. As Alan Marsh has said, and as the noble Lords, Lord Patel and Lord Rea, have said tonight, we need not just a
1302
welfare-to-work programme but a welfare-to-health programme, and, as the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said—I agree with him—a welfare-to-heat programme. We are engaged in providing that.
We have made the tackling of child poverty a priority, because unless we tackle that we shall build up problems for the future because we know that poverty, like wealth, is largely inherited, largely unmerited and unearned. We know that poverty is a cause of poverty. For example, people raised in a family experiencing unemployment are, when they grow up, about twice as likely to have prolonged periods of unemployment themselves. Although children of poor families may move up one or two deciles of income as compared with their parents, for most people the movement is short range, short term, and down the snake they come.
Poverty should not be a birthright. Our strategy is to break that cycle and to halt the transmission of low expectations, low aspirations and low outcomes from parent to child. That means we need to invest our children with the best possible start in life as the dowry our society owes them. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel, absolutely rightly said, the periods before and immediately after birth are crucial to a child's development. At 22 months children whose parents are in social classes 1 and 2 are already 14 percentage points further up the educational development scale than children whose parents are in social classes 4 or 5. When they start school, they begin to fall even further behind. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. said, by the time they are in their teens they are already beginning, almost literally, to vote with their feet. That is why we have introduced a new short start programme, modelled to some extent on the American headstart programme, to promote the well-being of children. We are spending £500 million on building 250 local programmes, as well as investing a further £19 billion in education across the board.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, movingly said, there are other groups of vulnerable young people who find it difficult to make the transition to adult life. I refer to teenage mothers, children living in the care of local authorities and 16 to 18 year-olds dropping out of education and training. The long-term life chances of these children are often significantly worse than those of other children. We have cross-government programmes which help to discourage teenage conceptions on the ground that children should not have children, as the Prime Minister said. As your Lordships will know, a Bill currently going through this House steered by my noble friend Lord Hunt seeks to encourage local authorities to continue the care of children who are leaving care. I believe that that Bill has been warmly welcomed by your Lordships. Therefore we have a comprehensive programme of action to tackle child poverty, to tackle the causes of child poverty and to help the most vulnerable children as they make the transition to adult life.
We have also to address the problems of people of working age, because they enter poverty for two reasons: half of them enter poverty because they have no job or they lose it and the rest through family

1303
breakdown or the birth of an extra child. People of working age are poor if they are not in work. The proportion of working age households with no one in work has doubled since 1979. There is only one escape route for people of working age and that is into earnings. Two-thirds of those who move out of low incomes do so when someone in their family gets a job or increases their earnings. If he gets a job and she gets a part-time job, they then become work rich rather than work poor. To achieve that aim we have to establish the right macro-economic framework, which we are doing. Unemployment is now at its lowest level for 20 years. Over 700,000 more people are now in work. The number of unemployed young people has fallen by more than half. The number of long-term unemployed has also halved. Our record so far is good, though we still have more to do.
Yet there are still substantial numbers of people who are out of work, inactive and depend on social security to survive. The number of economically inactive men outnumbers the number of registered unemployed by more than two to one. Around one in seven of the working age population are out of work claiming income replacement benefits and nearly 3 million of those have been out of work for more than five years. Many of these people want to work. They are the hidden jobless. Around 1 million disabled people without a job want to work, especially if we can help them tackle the barriers that block their way. That applies also to lone parents.
Work is available. There are more than a million vacancies across Britain, spread pretty evenly across the regions. Our New Deals are springing people back into work. But we also need to make work pay. My noble friend Lord Davies of Coity talked powerfully about the effects of both the working families' tax credit and, above all, the national minimum wage, which has helped more than 1.5 million people—two-thirds of them women—to spring the poverty trap.
My noble friend Lady Howells thoughtfully described the situation of people in ethnic minorities. She is right to say that seven in 10 households with a Pakistani or Bangladeshi head of family were in the poorest fifth of incomes either because they had high unemployment among the men or low employment among the women or large families or low pay. But the good news is that with the New Deal some 57 per cent of ethnic minority young people and 59 per cent of whites—that is a virtually identical figure—have left the New Deal to enter work. The future is more promising. We know, however, that work is not appropriate for all. That is why from 2001 we shall provide the 175,000 poorest disabled people who cannot work with a new income guarantee—for single adults, children and couples—thus establishing their incomes.
I wish to say a few words about pensioners. We want to ensure that all pensioners have a life to look forward to. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, said that pensioners were being left behind. That is simply not true. Over the past 20 years or so pensioners' incomes have on average increased much faster than
1304
the incomes of the rest of us—by 60 per cent in real terms. However, there are still some who struggle to make do, even though income support has kept pace with the rise in real earnings rather than just prices. That is why our strategy is twofold. We seek to help those who are poorest now, mainly elderly widows who need help with taking up the guaranteed minimum income, and we seek to reform our pensions strategy by adding to the basic state pension access either to a state second pension or a stakeholder pension where a good occupational pension is not in place. I have explained what we are doing for pensioners, for people of working age and for children.
We welcome the Rowntree report Monitoring poverty and social exclusion. However, I add a note of caution. The report showed the position mainly in 1997–98 when the key statistics for WFTC and the national minimum wage had not yet come through. Many noble Lords have spoken about research tonight, and we shall be monitoring this in our annual reports, Opportunity for all, in which we shall be measuring our progress in eradicating poverty against our agreed poverty indicators.
We accept the reality of poverty; we accept its many facets; we accept the damage it causes. Beveridge understood those connections more than 50 years ago—so do we. That is why, together with our New Deals, the minimum wage, WFTC, our work for children and our work for pensioners, I believe that we have made more progress, although we need to make even more, in the past two to three years than we have seen over the past 15 years. We have a lot to do, but we are getting there.
8 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, this has been a debate in which it has been a privilege to take part. The House collectively has been absolutely at its best. It is not often that one is allowed to take part in a debate where there are 26 speakers—all of them relevant, all of them good, all of them drawing on different and diverse bodies of experience—and where every speaker on the list beyond number 20 has a major new point to contribute. That really is a pleasure.
I thank the Minister very warmly for replying to the debate in the spirit in which it was conducted. It was a debate in which there were some fairly deep divisions of principle and some fairly deep divisions about likely solutions. But there was also a large amount of common ground.
I agree with Mrs Malaprop that comparisons are odorous. I am not making a comparison but emphasising the need for diversity in paying special tribute to the contributions of the right reverend Prelates. The Church has been for centuries practically the only institution represented in every parish of the country. Its knowledge and its concern for community life owe a great deal to that fact. Were the Church's parochial structure to fall victim to mammon, I believe that not only Christians would be the losers.

1305
It is not a figure of speech to say that I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken—I should like to thank them very warmly indeed. Having done so, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

Census Order 2000
8.3 p.m.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey rose to move, That the particulars in italics in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order laid before the House on 10th January, and the provisions of Article 6 of the draft order in so far as they relate to those particulars, be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee]. —(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this rather peculiar wording for a Motion arises from the fact that the draft census order is a unique instrument in that some topics may be included in the census without a formal Motion of approval—that is, by negative instrument—whereas others can be included only if they receive the approval of Parliament by affirmative resolution. Those items requiring such approval are set out in italics in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order.
The draft order gives effect to the Government's proposals for a census in England and Wales on 29th April 2001. Those proposals were set out in a White Paper in March 1999.
Under the Census Act 1920, an Order in Council is necessary to prescribe the date of the census, the people to be counted and those to be responsible for making the census returns and the information to be given in those returns.
We have had a census in Britain every 10 years since 1801, except for 1941, and they have traditionally been held in April because that allows for the necessary fieldwork to be conducted at a time when there are sufficient daylight hours and less risk of poor weather conditions; and 29th April has been chosen to avoid Easter and the major holiday periods.
Following devolution, separate legislative arrangements will be made in Scotland and Northern Ireland for the censuses there. However, a common date is proposed throughout the United Kingdom. The date also complies with European Union guidelines for the 2001 round of censuses.
The categories of people to be counted are set out in Article 4 of the draft order. The people to be responsible for making the returns are covered by Article 5. The information to be given in the returns is covered by Article 6 and is set out in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order.
The final lay-out of the questions that will appear on the census form will be published in regulations, to be laid before the House once the Order in Council has been made, setting out the detailed conduct of the census and containing facsimile copies of the forms, and to be approved by negative resolution. A few questions set out in Schedule 2 are either new to the
1306
census in England and Wales or have been significantly revised since the 1991 census. Some, but not all, of them need the affirmative resolution.
Item 2 refers to the relationship of each person in a household of two or more people to the first person on the form and to the relationship between each person in that household. This new style of question expands the information that was collected in the 1991 census, and responses will provide statistics for more detailed analysis of household and family structure to reflect the needs for information on an ever-changing society.
Item 9 relates to a revised question on ethnic group. The ethnic group question was one of the main successes of the 1991 census. Information from it has been used to provide the baseline figures against which the Government are able to monitor possible racial disadvantage. The wording of the question set out in the draft census order has been extensively researched and tested since the 1991 census, both to meet users' requirements for additional information about people of mixed origin and sub-groups within the "white" population, particularly the "Irish", and to be as acceptable as possible to respondents. The form of the question also allows for respondents to describe their ethnic group in their own words using the "write-in" option.
Item 10 asks people to assess their own health over the preceding 12 months as either "Good", "Fairly good" or "Not good". The question is new and simple and, although it is subjective, the information from it has been demonstrated in sample surveys to have a good predictive power for health policy and the provision of services, particularly for the elderly.
Item 11 relates to the provision of unpaid personal help. The Government recognise that an increasing amount of unpaid personal help is given to people with poor health. This new census question will help the understanding of the variations in the need of care and the targeting of resources more effectively.
The information from a revised question on academic and vocational qualifications in Item 14 will be used to assist the better provision of education and training and monitoring of take-up of government initiatives.
Item 16(e) relates to the time since last paid employment. This new question will help determine local differences in the periods of unemployment and the extent of long-term unemployment. Information from this question will also be used to assess and monitor disadvantage and exclusion, in education and training planning, in labour market analysis and in mortality and morbidity studies.
Item 23 seeks to collect information on the lowest floor level of a household's accommodation. This question was included in the census in Scotland in 1991 but is new in England and Wales. The information will help to provide a better measure of households living in potentially unsuitable accommodation, particularly households with children or households with elderly residents or people with a long-term illness living several floors above the ground.
Your Lordships will be aware that the 2001 census White Paper proposed that a question on religion be included in England and Wales for the first time. The question would help provide information that would supplement the output from the ethnicity question by identifying ethnic minority sub-groups, particularly those originating from the Indian subcontinent, who increasingly prefer to identify themselves in terms of their religion. However, as currently worded, the Schedule to the Census Act 1920 does not permit particulars on such a topic to be collected and, consequently, the inclusion of a question in the 2001 census in England and Wales will depend on a change being made to the primary census legislation. Your Lordships will be aware that to effect this change a Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Weatherill, the Census (Amendment) Bill, is currently being considered by this House.
The White Paper also set out the principles governing the treatment of the information given in the returns. Census information is used only for statistical purposes. The Census Act makes it a criminal offence for Census Office staff or agents providing services to the Registrar General to pass on personal census information to anyone without lawful authority. The forms will be destroyed after processing has been completed. Electronic copies of them will be kept secure and closed to public inspection for 100 years. Great care will be taken to prevent the inadvertent disclosure of information about identifiable individuals in the tables produced from the census, particularly those for local areas or specific sub-groups of the population.
The security of census data and the measures to be taken to protect confidentiality in output will be subject to independent reviews, the results of which will be announced prior to the census. In short, I can assure the House about the confidentiality of all census information. The Census Office in England and Wales, along with its partners in Scotland and Northern Ireland, has an outstanding record for maintaining that confidentiality and one which it is determined to maintain.
The main national and local results will be released to a committed timetable as speedily as possible over a short period of time. The timetable will be announced once all the production systems have been fully rehearsed. Under the terms of the census legislation the Registrars General for England and Wales, for Scotland and for Northern Ireland each have a statutory responsibility to report the results of the census to their respective Parliaments.
The 2001 census in England and Wales is expected to cost an estimated £202.3 million, of which about three quarters falls into the next two financial years. The census will meet crucial requirements for statistical information. The burden on those who have to complete the census forms has been kept to a minimum, consistent with those needs, and the questions have been fully tested and found acceptable. I am confident that the census package as proposed
1308
strikes the right balance between meeting the essential needs for statistics while minimising the burden on the public, and I commend the draft order to the House.
Moved, That the particulars in italics in Schedules 2 and 3 to the draft order laid before the House on 10th January, and the provisions of Article 6 of the draft order in so far as they relate to those particulars, be approved [6th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord McIntosh of Haringey.)
Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the Minister for his explanation of the order. We on these Benches do not believe that the provisions are in any way contentious and we are therefore happy to support them.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I too endorse the noble Lord's statement. We on this side of the House certainly support the order. I am grateful to the Minister for explaining a number of questions likely to be in the census, particularly those on ethnicity, which have caused some concern in the past. I assure the Minister that on the basis of previous experience, the community feels comfortable with the way in which those questions have been put to them in the past. I hope that the census will receive a good response. I would plead with the Minister that, since we are waiting until April 29th 2001, it might be appropriate to ensure adequate publicity so that all communities are aware of the purpose of this particular census and to give them the right information so that they again feel comfortable.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their support. I shall certainly take back the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, about publicity for the provisions of the census, particularly among ethnic communities. I am sure that that will be at the forefront of the minds of representatives of the Office for National Statistics.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Wandsworth Prison
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Longford The Earl of Longford rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they propose to take on the report of the Chief Inspector of Prisons on Wandsworth prison.
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I am sorry that my noble friend Lord McIntosh is leaving the Chamber, because I was going to pay him a compliment of a dubious character.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I shall stay for it.
The Earl of Longford: I am not so sure that he would welcome it. I visited Wandsworth prison not so long ago during the time of the previous governor. I said to him, "Hello Governor. In my eyes you are the ideal prison governor". He said, "Don't tell anybody that

1309
because it would ruin my reputation'''. So I had better be careful about congratulating my noble friend on anything at all. 11 might damage his career, which is still in the melting pot, as I understand it. I am glad that he waited long enough to hear that. I am not going to say any more about my noble friend. He has gone anyway.
I am honoured and flattered that so many noble Lords have put their names down to speak in the debate, which is limited to one-and-a-half hours. We shall not have many minutes. Even the Minister will not have many minutes. I am nevertheless grateful. Perhaps the Government Whip, whom we respect so much, will inform me when I have overstepped my limit. I am allowed only 10 minutes, but of course I could go on for hours.
We are told in the Christian gospel, "Judge not, that ye be not judged", but it is impossible not to make a judgment here. The story of Wandsworth prison revealed to us by the much revered chief inspector is a terrible story. I do not know if it is any worse than that of Wormwood Scrubs, but at any rate it is extremely bad. We cannot restrict our criticisms to the prison or to the people in charge of it. One must remember that the Prison Service has a very bad record, as the report reveals. For six months the prison was left without a governor. That was the fault of the Prison Service. What was the Home Office doing?
Therefore, I am bound to put the question, of which I have given notice to the Minister: how far does the Minister accept responsibility for the failure—in this case, the signal failure—of the Prison Service? I hope that he will say that he accepts responsibility and that he will take steps to improve matters in the future. We have seen this dreadful report and we all look to the future rather than to the past.
Those of us who have been visiting prisoners for half a century know that Wandsworth has the reputation of being the worst prison. Many years ago when I visited Maidstone prison, I said on leaving to a prison officer, "I like t1 is prison, you know"—which was a rather stupid and unwise thing to say—"I like this prison. I wouldn't mind being governor here". I shall not say exactly what he said in reply—he used rather stronger words than I can quote to your Lordships—but the gist was, "Any fool can manage this place. You wouldn't last five minutes at Wandsworth". Wandsworth had the reputation of being the worst prison. The Government are tackling that reputation head on and I give them full credit for facing up to it.
At last the story has been told in detail by our much respected Chief Inspector of Prisons. What are we going to do about it? We can all surely accept the general opinion of the chief inspector about what makes a healthy prison and what does not. One thing that does not make a healthy prison, which is brought out clearly in the report, is a situation in which the prisoners are frightened of the staff. There is something particular about the Wandsworth culture. I repeat that phrase because it is important in this connection—"the Wandsworth culture". I have known the Wandsworth culture for half a century. How on earth can it be put right?
1310
I do not underestimate the task facing the Minister. I know that he cannot do it tomorrow, but I want to know how the Government are setting out to tackle the Wandsworth culture. I have met the chief inspector since the report was published. I had good talks with him and with the area manager. I am greatly impressed by what has been achieved in the area plan. I hope that the Minister will tell us about that in due course. The new plan is very good.
I visited the prison last week. I met the governor and deputy governor. Luckily, on my way into the prison I ran into the Catholic chaplain, whom I have known in the past. He told me that there has been a great change in the most criticised of all the departments— what was called the segregation unit. The Minister will tell us that it has been given a new name, which is important. I do not doubt the Minister. I want to be on the side of optimism. Things are happening there.
I do not want the Minister to feel that I am saying in a snide kind of way that I do not know at all what is going on there and that I do not like the smell of it. I do like the smell of it, but the point is, what is going to happen? It is a tremendous task to put right the horrible culture of half a century or more. How are the Government going to do it? The Chief Inspector has pointed the way. A change in management is needed. But how does one change the management without changing the managers?
The Home Office has changed the governor. I knew the previous governor. I liked him very much. I said to him, "In my view, you're a good governor". He said, "Don't tell anyone that. It would ruin my reputation". But he has now been moved. I have met the new governor and his deputy. I was very much impressed, as I have been impressed by the area manager too. There is a very impressive team in charge of the prison so I am asking the Minister to give them inspiration.
Above all, it is a hell of a task. Just before coming to the House—only this evening—I received a letter from the Prison Officers' Association. It is very easy to be nasty about the Prison Officers' Association and to blame everything on it. I do not do that. I am on its side. I should like to think that I am its friend, although I do not think it believes that I am. Nevertheless, the Prison Officers' Association is worried about the damage to the morale of the prison staff caused by these rather crucifying reports. We have to think of the prison staff. I am told—I know only what I read in the letter—that prisoners are attacking the prison officers more frequently as a result of the decline in prison officers' morale. I do not know whether that is true, but that is what I have been told. We have to face that fact. It is no use sitting here saying that everything can be altered. Over half a century the prison staff have treated prisoners in a certain way—I think in a rather bullying way. How are we going to alter that?
That is the great question before us. I know that the Minister means well and the Government mean well. I am on the side of all their efforts. It is a tremendous task. I look with hope to the Minister to tell us how they are going to set about it.
8.21 p.m.
Baroness Linklater of Butterstone: My Lords, anyone who has an interest in what is going on in our prisons today will be extremely concerned by this report. For it represents an indictment of those with responsibility for the custody and care of the prisoners in their charge which reaches to the highest levels in the Prison Service, and their failure properly to discharge those responsibilities. The chief inspector has quite a lot to commend in Wandsworth, but overall he states that it is,
"far behind the vast majority of other prisons in civilising the treatment of and conditions for prisoners".
As a result, a situation has been allowed to develop in Wandsworth in which life has clearly become unacceptably difficult not only for the prisoners held there but also for many of the prison staff and others associated with the prison. That is intolerable for all concerned—and this includes us, my Lords, for we all have a duty of care for how our prisons are run.
The report is particularly concerned about the alarming culture of the prison—"the Wandsworth Way"—which underpins many of the other difficulties, a point referred to by the noble Earl, Lord Longford. The levels of overcrowding, which mirror the catastrophic rise in the prison population generally, coupled with budget cuts have compounded the problems. It makes most unhappy reading. However, I will concentrate on three particular aspects of the report.
I had a feeling of déjà vu about some of the report's contents. The description of the way visits are handled, the attitudes to visitors—described as "despicable" by some, but not all staff—and the mismanagement of arrangements such as the booking system described in Wandsworth today reminded me of the time when I was involved in setting up the first visitors centre at Pentonville back in 1970. Then too visitors, mostly wives and children, were often treated as if they also were criminals when in reality they were more often victims. Then too it could take an hour or more to get into the visits room—plus ça change. When we started the centre it was a controversial idea to provide a service to these families, but it is a measure of progress that visitors centres are now part of the landscape. I am delighted that Wandsworth too has a visitors centre, which was highly praised in the chief inspector's report, so that visitors do have that degree of support. But, how people are treated by prison staff is also crucially important.
There is a clear understanding today that regular, positive contact between a prisoner and his family and friends is absolutely essential if prisons are to be manageable institutions. Thus, visits form a key part of the life of any prison. They maintain vital family links and contacts with the outside world, and are of huge importance to all prisoners. How their visitors are treated and how their visits go can make all the difference to the prisoners concerned, which in turn will impact on the atmosphere in a prison. Visits are never easy, but if properly and sensitively managed they result in prisoners being more relaxed and happier and ultimately that means a happier prison. This is
1312
well understood in most prisons, and indeed in Scotland we have seen the introduction of the families contact development officer who spends his time in the visits area actively fostering good and positive relationships between visitors and the uniformed staff. I hope very much that the Minister will give serious consideration to developing this model in England. I should also like to ask what priority is given to spending on visitors facilities and centres when capital funding is being allocated.
The segregation unit also has a familiar ring about it, where the most disruptive, weakest or unpopular—notably sex offenders—are held and this is where the report is most critical. It reminds me of the infamous B Hall in Peterhead prison back in the mid-1980s when men were held in isolation, sometimes for months, by staff who wore riot gear at all times. Like Wandsworth today, it enjoyed a reputation as a hard prison, and that was its hardest feature. I am glad to say that B Hall is no more, and those men were satisfactorily dispersed. But the report refers to the,
"inhuman and reprehensible way that prisoners were treated"
in Wandsworth's segregation unit. That is unacceptable.
Just as the gate lodge and visits area of a prison is a barometer of the ethos of a prison in the way it presents itself to the outside world and deals with its visitors, so segregation units are a barometer of basic levels of care. If any level of abuse is occurring, this is where it is likely to be found. That is because of the very difficult nature of the prisoners held in these units, the fact that they are out of the mainstream of prison life and that they tend to be managed by the same staff team. While this can be helpful where there is good practice, if there is not, then they can go badly wrong. These units absolutely require regular supervision and it is imperative that the Government put strategies in place to deal with this very difficult and sensitive area. I ask the Minister what practical plans there are to deal with this problem.
The problems of management and supervision of these units is a symptom of a larger problem for the most senior management levels in the service, which is the need to give an appropriate, effective and clear lead in terms of strategies, goals and vision. It is all too easy to pin the blame on the staff on the ground, or the POA and the "sizeable minority" of staff who embody and perpetuate the tough, negative, aggressive and frightening culture that pervades the prison. That certainly and shockingly exists, and the high proportion of prisoners who feel unsafe or claim that they have been assaulted by staff—even if exaggerated—is unacceptable and cannot be allowed to continue. But a prison which has had periods without its new governor actually on the job in the prison for months at a time, but seconded elsewhere, cannot begin to have its problems addressed. That too was unacceptable.
There are members of staff at Wandsworth who try their best to be constructive and do their job effectively. Indeed, the chief inspector paid tribute to them and identified various areas of very good

1313
practice. Having worked to set up and then run the Butler Trust back in 1985, which gives annual awards for outstanding work by staff throughout the prison services of the UK, I believe in the fundamental importance of maintaining standards and morale by recognising and promoting good practice by prison staff and disseminating it throughout the system. But to take that work forward, it must be in the context of clear and firm leadership from the top.
I welcome Jack Straw's initiative in inviting the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to look into the problems of failing prisons and how to identify them so that the Wandsworth abuses never recur. But I understand that he is being asked to report by the beginning of May and also has other commitments. So I should like to ask the Minister how he can possibly have time to make a meaningful report under those circumstances.
There is no quick or simple solution to the problems of Wandsworth. But simply on the indicators of those areas I have highlighted, it is not a healthy prison. I call on the Government to take urgent action to remedy this most shocking and worrying state of affairs.
8.30 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, we have already heard some of the concerns expressed in the wake of the chief inspector's unannounced visit to Wandsworth last July. I shall not repeat them, save to voice my own concern, as bishop to prisons, at what Sir David Ramsbotham found. Instead, I want to focus on two particular areas.
In his highly critical comments on the segregation unit at Wandsworth, the chief inspector mentions mentally disordered prisoners. It is well known that our over-burdened Prison Service has to deal with an unacceptably high level of mentally ill prisoners. As I have said previously in this House, a normal prison is no place to handle and house such people. It is totally unreasonable to expect ordinary prison officers to deal effectively with such inmates. That does not excuse filthy conditions or idleness, but it does help to illustrate the considerable pressure under which all prison staff are expected to work these days. I beg the Government, and the Minister in particular, to give urgent consideration to these matters.
Sir David says that what his team observed in the segregation unit confirmed his suspicions that the priorities of management are directed elsewhere than to the correct treatment and conditions of prisoners. Our prisons are bursting at the seams, and the Prison Service is obliged by government to give a high priority to budgets and key performance indicators. But we need also to recognise the importance of the quality of treatment and the conditions of prisoners. As Martin Narey, the director-general of the Prison Service told us in General Synod last November, for him, prisoners are ultimately about morality. In our anxieties about efficiency and costs, we need to remember that.
Secondly, I want to express concern about the chaplaincy at Wandsworth. Sir David refers to concerns about the facilities for worship for prisoners of all faiths and denominations in the vulnerable
1314
prisoner unit. I am told that the prison's Anglican chapel is now used during the week by a charity running experiential social drama and teaching programmes about relationships. While one applauds the provision of such programmes, it means that during the week the chapel cannot be used for a service, groups, or for individual inmates with a chaplain to pray on the day of a funeral of a close friend or relative that the prisoner may not attend. Chaplains have to make arrangements to re-order the chapel on Saturday for Sunday worship. I can recognise the pressure on space in Wandsworth, but the fact that the mosque can only be reached through the chapel makes respect for sacred space for all traditions of faith difficult and causes concern.
More important is the entitlement of prisoners to practise their religion in Wandsworth. Men whose names are properly listed to attend chapel may not be unlocked, and so their name is not on the list of attendees and they lose a place. Each week, so I am told, numbers of prisoners are not able to attend because there is a restriction on numbers in the chapel, and staffing difficulties do not allow the provision of additional services. There is an attitude that the prisoner must apply and that worship is a kind of recreation, not a right. Clearly, that is an unsatisfactory state of affairs.
Wandsworth is a large local remand prison and its main function is to serve the courts by holding prisoners on remand and directly after sentence. The prison has to take what it is sent. That means that, in the main, the population is on the move continually. I know that staff often feel that Wandsworth "gets the dregs", and they cite examples of difficult prisoners being posted on to Wandsworth. All that gives some insight into the low morale of many officers. It does not encourage them to think creatively or to seek to depart from the "Wandsworth way" of doing things. It is a demoralising experience simply to be dealing with that turnover of difficult and demanding inmates. As the chief inspector rightly points out, Wandsworth shares many problems with other local prisons which are not of its own making.
It is hard, as the noble Earl, Lord Longford, said, to change a culture in a prison. However, the chief inspector told me only this week that, since the publication of his report, a new and impressive governor has been appointed to lead Wandsworth out of its difficulties. That, combined with a very good action plan by the area manager—a plan based on the inspectorate's concept of the healthy prison—should go a long way to turning Wandsworth round. All of us devoutly hope that that may be so.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, first, I should like to 'thank my noble friend Lord Longford for once again giving us the opportunity to discuss this issue. I am one of those who believe that we shall be assessed by historians on the conditions of our prisons. It is said that prison conditions say a great deal about the underlying values of the society in which we live.

1315
At the outset, I should like to underline that, in his report, the Chief Inspector of Prisons goes out of his way to say that there are good people working in the Prison Service in Wandsworth, people who are endeavouring to reach the highest standards and who deserve encouragement as well as inspired and firm leadership.
If we are looking at the seriousness of the report, it is important to place it in historical perspective. The task with which the Government, and those responsible to the Government, are confronted goes back a long way. It is more than 10 years since the Chief Inspector, Judge Tumim, in an inspection report, criticised the culture of staff neglecting prisoners and, subsequently, discipline staff walked out of the prison, blaming problems on "difficult prisoners" and police officers were drafted in to run the establishment.
In 1991, the Council of Europe condemned conditions at Wandsworth as "inhuman and degrading". In 1992, Wandsworth Community Health Council severely criticised the standard of healthcare in the prison, three years after the Chief Inspector of Prisons had made similar criticisms. In 1993, an inspection report described life for prisoners as "monotonous and tedious", with "completely inadequate" employment opportunities. Many prisoners were receiving less than one shower a week, and there was no inmate association. In 1997, a Board of Visitors' report criticised education and healthcare provision, and indeed the local Prison Officers' Association then demanded the removal of passages in the report that were critical of staff.
In 1999 the Wandsworth Board of Visitors criticised overcrowding, budget cuts, low staffing levels, lack of middle management and the fact that, on more than one occasion, the prison had been left without a governor for several months. That is a sad history and a very difficult situation for the present team to turn round. I hope that the message which goes out from tonight's debate is not negative but one that encourages and supports them to try to make this prison a model rather than one which continues in the "Wandsworth way".
Having said that, perhaps the Minister in his reply can deal with several specific points, some of which have already been mentioned, and reassure us. I very much agree with the right reverend Prelate that it is a tragedy—I use that word advisedly—that in so many of our prisons people should not be there at all because basically they are mentally ill. It would be good to hear reassuring comments from the Minister this evening that the Government have that issue in hand and are determined to do something about it. At another level, I was very concerned to read that there were two immigration detainees—it was a small number—in this prison. Why on earth were they in this awful place? I should like to have a specific assurance from the Minister that never again will an immigration detainee find himself in Wandsworth.
There are also disturbing observations in the report that staff did not know how many foreign nationals were in the prison and there were communication
1316
difficulties because of language. I should like a reassurance from the Minister that something specific is being done about that. The chief inspector also talked about racism. I suspect that in this context he was not talking primarily about the staff. This is a pernicious problem which must be tackled head on. It would also be of assistance to have a reassurance from the Minister on that matter.
I was concerned to hear that last year there were 305 instances of self-harm in Wandsworth. What is being done about that? I totally agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, that we must have evidence from the Minister that the issues surrounding the segregation unit are being tackled and that arrangements for visitors are being made, or should be. Of all that I have learnt about rehabilitation, relationships with families are of crucial importance.
Perhaps the most important issue of all is that it is impossible to read the report without drawing the conclusion that here we have too big and impersonal a prison with all its problems of overcrowding and so on. If there is a future strategy for our prisons it will be of assistance to know that we shall not continue to run establishments of this size which in many ways make it virtually impossible to manage them. I recognise that this situation has been inherited by those with current responsibility, and we want to support them in finding a way forward. However, firm leadership is necessary and that must start with the Government. For that reason, I ask my noble friend to provide specific reassurances on the points that I have raised.
There is one basic point on which I should like to hear the thinking of the Minister. Like others, I have great respect for him and his colleagues in all that they seek to do. I believe that a government that seek to be judged by the toughness and effectiveness of their penal policy must have the challenge of rehabilitation at the top of their priorities. It must be understood that wrongdoing is not acceptable and will be punished, but the challenge is to turn the wrongdoers into decent, positive citizens.
The question is: how does one bring them back into mainstream life so that they make a constructive contribution? The desperately sad fact to emerge from the report is that there is evidence that people are being turned into hardened criminals with little chance of playing a positive part in society and taking an altogether different approach to life on their release. It is not only a matter of what happens in prison but of what arrangements are made to ensure that people are not just dumped back into society. They must be taken by the hand and led back into society so that they can reconstruct their lives. That approach must be based on the underlying culture and expectations of the Prison Service. We have heard about leadership. However, I should like to hear the Minister tell the House specifically what is being done to re-express the culture of the Prison Service so that the challenge of rehabilitation is seen as the principal vocational task of all those who on our behalf look after people in our prisons, which is no easy task.
8.45 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, Holloway, Feltham, Wormwood Scrubs and now Wandsworth have been the subject of scarifying reports which in the old days would have been enough to see the departure of the Home Secretary. Since the previous Home Secretary managed to hive off the responsibility to the director-general, nowadays almost anything can happen in the Prison Service without disturbing the equilibrium of Queen Anne's Gate. Every time the chief inspector comes out with a hard-hitting report it is greeted with an air of injured surprise in the eyes of Queen Anne's Gate. In the last case the Minister, commenting on the report at the Prison Service annual conference at Harrogate, said:
"We cannot continue to experience the sort of failures that have occurred in the Scrubs and Wandsworth … in which all those agencies and systems that you would expect to alert the Board [to] problems seem not to lave done so".
If there is an absence of an effective early warning system which causes management and the Minister to be caught on the hop in trying to explain to the media why they are unaware of what goes on in their prisons it is about time they found one. It is probable that one of the agencies that the Minister had in mind was the board of visitors. The board has a duty under Rule 77 to,
"direct the attention of the governor to any matter which calls for his attention, and shall report to the Secretary of State any matter which [it considers] it expedient to report".
It also has the quite separate duty to,
"inform the Secretary of State immediately of any abuse which comes to [its] knowledge".
Why does that system not provide an adequate early warning of trouble at Wandsworth or anywhere else?
First and foremost, I suggest that the reports are not read properly by anybody except the chief inspector, who picks up criticisms and expresses them in his own inimitable style. I shall demonstrate that in the case of Wandsworth. Secondly, the reporting duties of boards of visitors are not clearly defined. For some years I have tried to persuade Ministers that the boards should be required to produce annual reports and make them available to the media and the public. In the last year for which we have figures, 132 boards submitted annual reports to the Minister and only 94 of them were published. Will the Minister now place a duty on boards of visitors to publish annual reports, and will he ask them to report specifically on issues which are the main causes of problems?
Apart from routinely reporting to the Secretary of State any matter which they think it expedient to report, boards of visitors have the duty to inform the Minister "immediately" of any abuse which comes to their knowledge. I suggested to the previous Minister that the wording of this provision needed to be clarified because of the vagueness of the term "abuse" and the necessity to investigate whatever allegation might have been made, rather than bombarding the Secretary of State with every allegation which might turn out to be malicious or ill-founded.
1318
In September 1998 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Williams, agreed that there might be a need to look at the wording of that rule. He thought that in the mean time it would be helpful if the national director issued guidance to boards of visitors on the point. But. I noticed that the new rules published last year remain unchanged. I asked why the opportunity had not then been taken to make the drafting alterations. The noble Lord who is to respond this evening replied that only a consolidation exercise had been undertaken, plus a few obvious deletions such as the removal of provisions dealing with prisoners sentenced to death. However, the noble Lord undertook to ask the secretariat of the board of visitors to issue guidance to boards on how to interpret that rule until such time as it may be amended. Can the Minister say anything further on that? What are the circumstances in which boards would be required to communicate their knowledge of abuses occurring in their prison directly to the Secretary of State?
There are plenty of warnings in the 1997 and 1998 reports of the Wandsworth board of visitors. The Minister was not being entirely fair to the board when he claimed that all the responsible agencies had remained silent. They dealt with a number of issues raised later in perhaps rather stronger language by Sir David. At the beginning of the report, it commented adversely on the fact, as noted by my noble friend Lady Linklater, that the previous governing governor, Graham Clark, retired in June 1998 but his successor arrived four months later in October. Even then he was apparently taken out to act as area manager leaving the prison without a governing governor for six months. The board described that as unfortunate and said that the gap led to "a lack of direction". So no one can say that he was not told.
Sir David now says that he has criticised Prison Service senior management again and again for allowing that to happen, as one of the reasons for failing the prison. We do not need the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to tell us that. It is already in the report.
The board drew attention again to the problems created by the presence of a large foreign population in the prison—it was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Judd—with no resources to match. On average in that year there were 120 prisoners, or about 10 per cent of the population in the prison. However, at the time of the chief inspector's visit, the number had doubled to 250. Their needs were largely being ignored. The staff did not know how many foreigners there were on their wings, their nationality, or the languages they spoke. To deal humanely with those prisoners, one would have to provide interpreters, and meet the prisoners' dietary and religious needs. They might need reading material in their own language. They might need teaching by qualified ESL teachers. It is not satisfactory to dump the job of assessing those needs on the shoulders of one part-time race relations officer, however competent he may be.
To put that situation right would cost money. Yet governors have the same amount to spend per head on all prisoners irrespective of their nationality. I suggest to the Minister that we need a supplement, an extra

1319
payment, to governors to cover the needs I have mentioned where there is a large number of foreign nationals in the prison.
Last November I sent the Minister an analysis of foreign nationals in our prisons in March 1996 and September 1999. It indicated that the number of foreigners in our prisons is increasing even faster than British nationals. Bearing in mind the cost of keeping these prisoners in custody, I asked whether we could undertake a study to determine the reasons for the increase and to consider the possibility that the courts make greater use of suspended sentences with a recommendation for deportation; and whether the arrangements for repatriation of sentenced persons are working properly and expeditiously. Whether or not the Government agree to my suggested terms of reference, we should not turn a blind eye to a phenomenon which has important implications for both the criminal justice and the penal systems.
Finally, one way to improve the early warning of failing prisons would be to upgrade the standards of professionalism and competence of the boards of visitors. The training of board members is not well designed. The courses are not tailored to meet the needs of different kinds of establishment. They have no module on alleged abuse and what to do about it. They have no training on the Human Rights Act. The subject matter is geared to trained volunteers relying on their own experience. Some boards would like to see IIP accreditation, but that would require support from the Minister and the directorate.
8.53 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for initiating a debate on the Wandsworth prison report. Wandsworth is one of four significant prisons in my diocese and my colleagues and I share an active interest in the life and health of people there. I was therefore very concerned about the criticisms of Wandsworth made in the chief inspector's report.
As we have heard, Wandsworth prison, both within the service and outside, has the reputation of being a hard place able to handle prisoners who have proved difficult to handle elsewhere. They were sent to Wandsworth and Wandsworth handled them without too many questions being asked. That was the "Wandsworth way".
The chief inspector's report questions whether the remnant of the Wandsworth way has any place in a modern penal system. In particular, the report makes criticisms of the regime in the segregation unit where some of what the chief inspector calls "the worst and the weakest prisoners" were wont to show up. He says:
"Never have I had to write about anything so inhuman and reprehensible as the way that prisoners, some of them seeking protection and some of them mentally disordered, were treated in the filthy and untidy segregation unit".
The chief inspector adds that those visiting the unit, including chaplains and doctors, should ask themselves why they did not do enough to stop what was going on.
1320
I am in no position to respond to the accusation concerning Wandsworth. But I can tell a story from another prison in a different part of the country which might indicate why criticisms are sometimes muted. The story concerns a young prison chaplain who made several complaints about the harshness of a regime in a wing where vulnerable prisoners were being held. An accusation of sexual misbehaviour by the chaplain was then made and he was suspended. The police were eventually informed and within a short time came to the conclusion that the accusation had been concocted. Nevertheless, it took several months before the chaplain's suspension was lifted and he was then moved to another prison.
I was closely involved in the case and have no doubt that the whole episode was engineered in order to move someone who was perceived to be a troublesome member of staff. Will that chaplain complain again about anything he sees which disturbs him? I doubt it. Will he keep his head down and just get on with his job without complaint? Very probably.
The report is quite correct. In the absence of firm management, inexperienced staff become resigned to decisions being taken by the dominant officer of the day on the wing. And woe betide the member of staff or prisoner who steps out of line.
The report makes many recommendations, and the noble Earl rightly wishes to know how these issues are being addressed. A diocesan bishop is in a privileged position. He can turn up at the gatehouse of any prison in his diocese unannounced and has the right of admission. It is a right rarely used. We usually make an appointment like most civilised folk. However, last night, in order to address the noble Earl's Question I thought it right to show up unannounced at the gate of Wandsworth prison at six o'clock and ask to be taken to the segregation unit. To be honest, I was expecting to be depressed by what I found. On the contrary, I was much encouraged. The unit has been completely redecorated, a new kitchen has been installed, and new showers are in the process of being fitted. While not spotless, the floors and the washbasins are no dirtier than those in the average student accommodation.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, perhaps I may interrupt the right reverend Prelate. No doubt he will tell us: it has been given a new name.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark: My Lords, indeed it has been given a new name. Nevertheless, it is the same wing. Since the report was published, new staff have been assigned to the unit. They were obviously proud of the changes which have been made. I emphasise that they were not expecting my visit.
I visited five of the prisoners in the unit, whom I chose at random, and, unlike the members of the inquiry team, I saw each of them alone in their cells without a prison officer being present. They ranged from one prisoner who had been put on the wing that day to those who had been there six months because they were reluctant to return to the landings. Each one told me that they felt safer in the segregation unit than on the landings. This would suggest that there is now

1321
no brutality in the segregation unit but leaves open the question of whether or not there is bullying or a harsh regime on the landings.
There were no complaints about the frequency of showers, but it is quite obvious that the granting of exercise is still a privilege not a right, and it is a privilege that the prisoners are sure will not be granted if they make a nuisance of themselves. This was the only evidence of any remnant of the Wandsworth way that I discerned in the segregation unit.
Judging from this unannounced visit, changes are in hand. I should caution against merely going through the report's recommendations and ticking off the changes. This "tick box" mentality underestimates the task that is necessary to tackle the deeper issues of exercising authority in a tough gaol in a civilised and civilising way.
Prison officers will only pay more than lip service to change if they are confident that they are not losing control of their environment. There is the feeling among many long-serving prison officers that demanding prisoners are best controlled by locking them in their cells for long periods of time. The best penal practice to which the report points knows that this is not so. Assaults upon prison officers and other prisoners are more of a problem when the pent up anger, developed through long periods of confinement, boils over when the door is ultimately opened. That is when assaults take place. The best regime is created where relatively small numbers of prison officers feel confident in supervising a moderate number of prisoners in association or work. This can be done, and is being done in some of the better regimes. To develop such a regime at Wandsworth prison will take time. It will take firm management by the new governor. It will take clear action against unacceptable behaviour on behalf of prison officers or prisoners and it will take constant monitoring.
I did not expect to be at all impressed during my visit last night. But, to my surprise, I was. I hope that Sir David, when he pays a return visit to Wandsworth, will also see signs of clear progress. I certainly intend to pay unannounced visits from time to time because I believe that this type of public accountability is the best way of encouraging Wandsworth forward. Perhaps we will see developed another kind of Wandsworth way, the way of moving an elderly local prison forward in the most enlightened fashion. It will take time, but it is not impossible. I believe that a good start has been made.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, I am privileged to follow the right reverend Prelate because he gives that for which we all look; that is, hope and salvation arising out of the report.
The debate tonight has been called for by my friend Lord Longford, who is well known for his interest in penal matters. We congratulate him.
I share the concern expressed by many. In my notes I call the report a disturbing report. It did disturb me. I have visited Wandsworth prison more than once in the past. It is right that parliamentary time should be given
1322
to debating the report. One of the values of a debate such as this is that all sides of the argument can be put, not only that in the inspector's report, but comments from outside parties on the inspector's report. It was put to me that the report rested very much on feelings: it was felt this and it was felt that. I thought of Charles Aznavour who had a hit song called "Feelings". We ought to base ourselves on something more substantial than feelings.
Many strictures in the report are well founded, and I do not dispute them. Earlier this evening I met with members of the Prison Officers' Association and prison officers from Wandsworth. They recognise that there is a major job to be done, and that the first issue to be tackled is that of leadership. For six months before the report visit, the governor was going about his proper business; he was then seconded as area manager, and did not have hands-on control. That of itself would be a major factor in a general malaise that might have existed in the prison.
We now have the heartening news of a new governor who has impressed those he has met. That is a good sign because the prison officers to whom I spoke told me that, in a difficult situation, they are working very closely and very well with the new governor on addressing the problems with which they can themselves deal.
There are a number of ameliorating and extenuating factors that ought to receive attention: for example, race relations. Race relations was singled out as a stricture: the presence of and the lack of attention to race relations. I am told that there is now a positive policy and a training package in which the Prison Officers' Association has played a full part. At the annual meeting of the POA this year—which I have attended in the past and addressed many times—the major discussion or debate will be to do with race relations and equal opportunities. The POA does not run away from criticisms either of itself or its members. The record should show that it recognises the problem and it is trying to deal with it.
I was given a note, which I should like to mention in the debate, about the fine work put in by prison officers. Safe Ground is a charity that provides positive training and skills to inmates regarding parental skills. This training is based on drama and film. Another charity is Fine Cell Work. A prison officer has received an award from the governor for producing this work. Then one looks at the laundry workshop that is part of the estate. The prison industry's award went to the laundry at Wandsworth for the best workshop in the Prison Service for 1999–2000. The CoSLA award was presented for the second year running to the prison magazine that was produced by the staff. The gymnasium at Wandsworth is used not only by the inmates; local blind children are brought into the prison and use the gymnasium under the guidance of prison officers.
Drugs now, as in the past, play a major part. I am told that positive results in random tests are one-third of the national average and have been for the past three years. People who know the culture of drugs in

1323
our society, let alone in the prisons, realise that that must be a tremendous achievement. It is only done by positive work, understanding and determination by the prison officers.
Tonight, we have a major opportunity to act. Even though the report and the situation are bleak, one ought to make a number of comments. For instance, the chief inspector said:
"Unfortunately, the good work of many of the staff in HMP Wandsworth is being overshadowed by a pervasive culture of fear … Prison Service management, the Governor and his staff, must all share some blame, as it was quite obvious to the inspection team from the outset that Wandsworth was far behind the vast majority of other prisons in civilising the treatment of and conditions for prisoners".
That is not down to the prison officers or the POA but to a whole range of people. Those accused in part of some dereliction ought not to be offended.
The chief inspector also said:
"The time to dispense with 'The Wandsworth Way' is long overdue. The silver lining to this particularly dark cloud is that I believe the majority of staff have the skills and capabilities to help move the prison out of its current malaise".
Martin Narey, Director General of the Prison Service, who has my utmost respect, said:
"I am afraid that the vast majority of the staff at Wandsworth and more significantly those who know the prison well, including the Board of Visitors and outside groups who work with the prison, will not recognise much of this report. The drug strategy. excellent offending behaviour courses, healthcare and the imaginative use of the voluntary sector in, for example, parenting courses for fathers are praised by all who see them".
The Minister, Mr Paul Boateng, said:
"There is good practice at Wandsworth. Good staff must not see their work undermined by bad attitudes. The drugs strategy, healthcare and the successful offending behaviour courses … are to be admired".
Finally, Mark Healey, Chairman of the Prison Officers' Association said that it was unfair to criticise prison officers for conditions which stemmed from staff and funding cutbacks. The enormous overcrowding and tight budgets have a lot to do with the situation. Mark told me:
"Our members are assaulted every day of the year. Staffing levels are paramount for the POA and it is no good asking for an enhanced regime if the resources are not there".
I was told that the number of assaults on prison officers and inmates doubled in the three months surrounding Christmas. There is a feeling that the prisoners think they are winning. The morale of the staff is crucial and that is why I welcome the positive remarks which are attributed to the new governor.
In conclusion, I hope that the Minister will be able to tell us that this can be seen as an opportunity not only for the Minister but also for the Director General, the POA and everyone concerned. Unless it is recognised that one of the most valuable assets in the penal estate is the training and dedication of the prison officers, we shall lose out. Society sends to prison people convicted of a crime, many of whom are illiterate, inadequate, vicious and violent. It locks the doors and says to the prison officers, "Look after them
1324
on our behalf". What prison officers need is encouragement and support, and I hope that the Minister can provide that tonight.
9.11 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Longford, for introducing the debate. No one can be surprised that the chief inspector's report on Wandsworth has generated so much concern.
When a person is sentenced to custody, the state takes over the responsibility for his welfare. We therefore expect the highest standards of prison institutions in the way they treat inmates. The courts rightly pass the sentence and no one has the right to develop a culture which further penalises inmates.
Immediately before the debate we approved an order relating to the census. It takes place every 10 years and gives a measurement of the progress we are making in our social policies. Like the noble Lord, Lord Judd, I decided to look back 10 years to when Judge Tumim was the Chief Inspector of Prisons. I shall not go into detail, but I picked up headlines such as that in October 1989,
"Shake-up called for in prison regime".
That was about Wandsworth. Also,
"Prison lacking a reforming regime",
and,
"Jail conditions at Wandsworth 'lack humanity'''.
That was the starting point in examining Sir David Ramsbotham's report. But what Judge Tumim said 10 years ago was very worrying. He went on to say,
"staff treated inmates with disdain and operated a 'thoroughly institutionalising regime—.
He also spoke of the culture of the prison officers. I simply reiterate that to a great extent the inference behind that report was that it was the prison officers who determined how the prison was to be run.
At the time, my noble friend the Chief Whip for our Benches, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, said that the conclusions of Judge Tumim's report were utterly disturbing and the prison was itself decaying. Ten years ago, HMI said that the prison failed to meet even,
"basic standards of humanity and decency".
It called for a phased but fundamental shake-up of a regime which was primitive and "thoroughly institutionalising".
Perhaps I may return to 1999. When the chief inspector's report on Wandsworth was published on 18th December 1999, it was the third highly critical report to come from the inspectorate, as has been pointed out by my noble friend Lord Avebury. It followed poor reports on Feltham in March and Wormwood Scrubs in June. The latest report still makes disturbing reading, but I should like to pick out, as did the noble Lord, Lord Graham, some important improvements. We should not back away from the good points and I do not wish to be accused of only picking out the bad elements.

1325
The report of the chief inspector was not uniformly critical of Wandsworth. It acknowledged that the accommodation had become cleaner and more modern since the previous inspection; that thoroughcare practice was more advanced than at many training prisons; and that specialist agencies were running positive drug treatment programmes, as has been pointed out by a number of noble Lords. Furthermore, all departments included enthusiastic and dedicated staff who were trying hard to overcome Wandsworth's problems. Let us not forget that we are not talking about all the staff; we are simply pointing out that some staff give a bad name to all those who do good work.
I am chair of the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders—NACRO. I am particularly pleased that some 250 staff at Wandsworth have undertaken race relations training devised by NACRO, which aims to cover all the staff over a three-year period. I have a vested interest in this because I believe that a proper race relations strategy forms an important part of prison policy.
I wish to concentrate on five problems identified by the chief inspector and mentioned in many other contributions to the debate tonight. The first problem is that we constantly return to the culture at Wandsworth. It is a culture that has been described as "The Wandsworth way" and is summed up in Sir David's report as follows:
"HMP Wandsworth has always had, arid some staff have prided themselves upon the reputation of being a 'hard' prison … Over the years, prisoners have been encouraged to think that they have been sent there as a punishment, with which many hardened ones have been happy to collude".
The result is that many prisoners consider the best way to survive is to keep your head down and be as anonymous as possible, as was rightly pointed out in an example given by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark.
Other prisoners respond by constantly behaving in a hard manner to show that they are not intimidated. Some ex-prisoners who have had experience of more constructive regimes in other prisons—for example, at Latchmere House resettlement prison—have said that they could tell which prisoners had been transferred from Wandsworth because they showed a hard, "macho" attitude and found it much more difficult to engage positively with opportunities for rehabilitation and to make constructive relationships with staff. This means that the traditional "Wandsworth way" is the opposite of the way in which we should be acting if we want to divert prisoners from reoffending.
The second issue I wish to raise is the high proportion of prisoners at Wandsworth—14 per cent—who claimed in questionnaires returned to the inspectorate to have been assaulted by a member of the staff. While prisoners can of course exaggerate such claims, they were more widespread than the inspectorate found in other prisons. Some ex-prisoners from Wandsworth spoke of verbal and physical aggression by a minority of staff.
1326
Are we powerless to identify culprits among the prison staff? Assault and aggression are unacceptable. Do we not have the technology to identify such officers? The police have successfully introduced ways to apprehend corrupt officers. Is there a lesson to he learnt from the police service in this area?
The most effective way of minimising the risk of misbehaviour is partly by the effective supervision of staff and partly by promoting a strong ethos of rehabilitation. However, at the time of the inspection, the population of the prison had been increased by 50 per cent from 921 to 1,294 but simultaneously was required to make cuts in its budget. How does one operate when the number of prisoners is doubled but there is no more money to look after them effectively?
Another problem that crops up time and again in reports by the chief inspector is the length of time which often elapses before a governor who leaves is replaced. That has been pointed out by a number of Ministers. Could we not devise a practice whereby we have the best possible people for the worst possible prison? Those people should not be taken away from that situation until the situation has been turned around.
Finally, I draw attention to the particular problems faced by the large number of foreign national prisoners at Wandsworth—some 250 at the time of the inspection—whose special needs were largely ignored. I hope that when the Minister replies he will he able to tell us of a firm and effective way to tackle those problems. Martin Narey, the Prison Service director, and Sir David Ramsbotham have done much to improve prison conditions. I have known them for years and I have every confidence in their ability to turn the prison around. In addition, we must never forget the work of the board of visitors, the chaplaincy and others who continuously go into prisons and carry out very useful work.
At the end of the day, our patience will be exhausted. If one has a toothache, there are ways of curing it. If the time comes when nothing works, that tooth must be extracted. Wandsworth will be no exception if its public profile continues to build up over a period of time, condemning it as being inhuman.
9.21 p.m.
Lord Cope of Berkeley: My Lords, this is a most serious report and this has been a most serious debate. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, has done us all a service by securing the debate this evening. The chief inspector makes important criticisms of Wandsworth prison and, in the preface to the report in particular, he also draws some wider conclusions from this particular case.
I have not been to Wandsworth prison. Therefore, I shall not follow the comments that have been made on the details of the report. However, clearly, both the detailed recommendations and the overall case made against the so-called "culture" of the prison deserve the closest scrutiny. From what I have heard about the prison from inquiries that I made before the debate, I gather that while very good work is being done there—

1327
attention was drawn to that a little earlier and it is mentioned by the chief inspector in the report—the problem of the culture is very real. It can be summarised as relating to the way that some of the officers treat the prisoners.
I should add at once that, when I was in another place, there were three prisons, or, to be more accurate, three penal establishments in my constituency and, for a while, a Prison Service training establishment as well, which I came to know well over more than 20 years. I have the highest respect for prison officers and governors and for the very difficult work that they carry out on behalf of us all. Although it is not directly relevant, I also came to have very high respect for the Northern Ireland Prison Service when I had responsibility for it for a couple of years. During that time, I came to know some very hard prisons indeed.
I return to Wandsworth. Throughout his report, the chief inspector makes the point that the culture of the prison does not respect prisoners sufficiently. However, both the noble Earl, Lord Longford, in his opening speech and, particularly, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark gave us reason to hope that changes were in progress. I believe that the speech of the right reverend Prelate was very important.
The chief inspector rightly says that Prison Service standards constantly emphasise that the service should respect the human dignity of prisoners. However, he also believes that the proper measures are not being used to judge the working of prisons in this respect. In talking about the information given to top management, he complains that it is,
"not about the quality of outcomes for prisoners but about budgets, Key Performance Indicators and measurements of quantity of laid down processes".
I do not doubt that he is right, but quality is notoriously more difficult to measure than quantity. In particular, it is very difficult to measure how much officers respect the human rights of prisoners. There is no objective measure. Respect can sometimes be measured by politeness—the way in which prisoners are addressed, for example. That leaves something to be desired in some cases. But in every prison there are some prisoners who are difficult to be civil to, let alone polite.
There are also some people who are quite capable of uttering the most polite words while really asserting their power over others. I think immediately of the regimental sergeant-major at Sandhurst explaining to a new officer cadet "You call me 'Sir', sir, and I call you 'Sir', sir, but the difference is—you mean it". I tell that story not in criticism of the sergeant-major, who certainly could not be faulted for lack of politeness on any objective measure, but in illustration of the difficulties of measuring respect.
In the end, I do not think the chief inspector is right to suggest, as he does rather indirectly, that performance indicators can be devised to measure in full the respect for the human rights of prisoners, although they might make a contribution. Governors
1328
and senior prison staff management should, of course, concern themselves about it, even if it cannot be measured, and they should do all they can to ensure that a proper culture exists in every prison. But not everything that is important can be easily measured and sent to head office on a form.
The noble Lord, Lord Graham of Edmonton, referred to the fact that the report was based on feelings. That is true, but the culture of a prison can be felt when visiting, although not so easily on a formal, high-level visit. One example is a ministerial visit, and until this evening I had thought an episcopal visit was another. However, it is something that, for example, the board of visitors should be responsive to, as it visits the prison all the time and sees it in its everyday guise and not on its best behaviour.
The same is true of chaplains and doctors, mentioned by the chief inspector, and of others who regularly go into a prison, although it is important not to damage their proper role by expecting them to be over-concerned with reporting to the management on conditions. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark gave us an important cautionary tale in that respect, too.
I regard what the chief inspector says about governors and senior staff of the Prison Service listening to boards of visitors and other sources of information on the culture of prisons as most important and deserving emphasis. But it is also most important to ensure that the staff at all levels can talk to management if they feel that things are not right. The noble Lord, Lord Graham, spoke of the comments on the report of officers from Wandsworth. I hope that they have had a full opportunity to see the report and to comment on it, not only through the Prison Officers' Association, but directly.
It is also very important to ensure that prisoners' complaints are properly considered and dealt with, as is mentioned in the report.
Above all, the Prison Service is right to be trying to refine its measures of outcomes. It would be very useful to see the statistics of reoffending by prisoners from various prisons. If the most effective regimes and programmes are to be built on, we need to know which they are. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Judd, that rehabilitation is one of the most important aims of prisons. But, of course, such statistics would suffer from the same difficulties as school league tables. The nature and habits of those who are sent to a particular prison are reflected in the outcomes. But the real difficulty is that prisoners who serve a sentence of any length do so in different prisons. The prison from which they are discharged would presumably get the credit or blame for their reoffending, or lack of it, and may not necessarily have been the most important influence.
But as the chief inspector indicates, the Prison Service is right to try to improve its information about the quality of treatment and the conditions of the prisoners and to improve comparisons between the outcomes of the different prisons.

1329
This has been an extremely useful debate. Like the report, it has been mainly about one single prison but, in reality, there are messages which affect the Prison Service as a whole much more widely. We are all grateful to the noble Earl both for initiating the debate and also for starting it off on a clear note of hope which has been echoed throughout the debate. We await with interest the Minister's response.
9.20 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I am, as ever, very grateful indeed to my noble friend Lord Longford for allowing us to discuss this very critical report from Sir David Ramsbotham, Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons. My noble friend Lord Graham put his finger on it when he said that this is an opportunity and I believe that that opportunity must be grasped. It is a very important moment in the development of the Prison Service.
My noble friend Lord Longford has prepared for this debate with his customary care and courtesy, speaking first to the chief inspector, the governor and the area manager and has been very thorough in his preparation.
Sir David has, with his usual robustness, identified severe failings, particularly in the segregation unit at Wandsworth. I want to report to the House this evening on the service's swift response to the chief inspector's findings and to explain how those improvements will be sustained and monitored year on year.
My noble friend Lord Longford asked how much responsibility the Government accept. It is important to address that point first. The Government take extremely seriously their responsibilities towards prisons. Indeed, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has resumed the previously abandoned practice that he and his Ministers should reply in person to Parliamentary Questions from Members of both Houses on prison matters. He made a Statement in the other place in response to the chief inspector's report on Worm wood Scrubs when he reaffirmed his personal responsibility to Parliament. On that occasion he said:
"There is a broad understanding that I do not undertake to lock up the cells and check the walls every evening. but I am responsible to the House for what happens in the Prison Service".—[Official Report, Commons, 28/6/99; col. 27.]
That is a very clear recognition of his accountability.
The chief inspector reports to the Home Secretary and it is right that he, in the first instance, should look to Martin Narey the director general, for a response to the report's recommendations. I assure the House that he and his senior management team do not shirk responsibility when change is clearly needed.
My right honourable friend Paul Boateng, the Minister for Prisons and Probation, visited Wandsworth prison just a few days after he was appointed. He has visited since and has first-hand knowledge of both the problems of that prison and the examples of good practice there.
1330
Wandsworth is one of the largest and most complex prisons in the country, and for many years played a crucial role in taking difficult prisoners from other prisons. With a prisoner population of around 1,300, it was recognised that the regime needed to be controlled and structured. Its success in operating a safe environment for prisoners and staff is reflected in the relatively low number of incidents.
As Sir David recognised, considerable efforts have been made to develop Wandsworth in the 1990s into a multi-functional prison, with offending behaviour programmes, a model drug strategy and good healthcare provision, forming a basis for further development.
As my noble friend Lord Graham noted, Sir David in particular praised,
"those many good staff who want to do a good job … and who have a genuine affection for, as well as pride in, Wandsworth".
He made it very clear that that was the case. He stated:
"There are enthusiastic, skilled and dedicated staff in all departments, who are trying as best they can to overcome the problems with which the prison is beset".
I add my thanks to the POA for its positive response to the action plan. Sir David concluded that there was a good foundation at Wandsworth on which the Prison Service can build, and evidenced that by the number of good practices he noted. Those points were referred to very well by the noble Lord, Lord Graham.
Sir David singled out for mention the introduction of "throughcare", which he identified as being more advanced than in training prisons and is a fine example of close working between prison, probation and psychology staff. It includes commendable initiatives, with two accredited offending behaviour programmes with an implementation quality rating of 100 per cent, which is, indeed, impressive.
In respect of the drug strategy, Sir David commended the fact that every prisoner is tested for substance abuse and that MDT results are presented in a highly sophisticated and effective manner, which he recommended is adopted for use by other prisons. Wandsworth's rate of positive mandatory drug tests is only 7 per cent, which is half the national target. That is an excellent achievement, particularly for a local prison.
The development of the drug strategy at Wandsworth has continued apace with the provision of 10 additional officers and counsellors to provide CARATs and to increase the availability of voluntary testing. Sir David also cited Wandsworth's healthcare as being an example of good practice, commending the arrangements for nurses, management of healthcare generally and the fact that nursing staff are always on duty when prisoners arrive.
Wandsworth is continuing to move forward on a wide range of other partnership-based initiatives. Tomorrow, for example, the Government will be signing a protocol on child protection arrangements with the Chief Executive of the NSPCC, the first of its kind across the Prison Service.

1331
Despite those good points we recognise the seriousness of the criticisms raised by the chief inspector, as does the Prison Service at large. The response to the findings of the chief inspector was swift and focused. Within days of Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Prisons leaving the prison, the Prison Service concentrated on immediate improvements to the segregation unit, the focus of some of his sharpest criticism.
All prisoners in the care and separation unit, which, as the noble Lord noted, has undergone a significant name change, now have access to daily exercise and showers and receive clear written or oral explanations of their rights and expectations. A woman officer and two ethnic minority officers are now working on the unit. Search procedures have been reviewed and the governor in charge visits the unit on a daily basis, which are all important improvements.
Adjudications are now carried out by the governing governor or his deputy. Special cells are no longer used to deal with suicidal prisoners. Daily inspections are made by the duty manager to ensure that standards of hygiene are scrupulously maintained. The programme of repainting is nearly finished.
However, as the chief inspector noted, cultural change is vital. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, and the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln referred to the value of cultural shift and its importance. We believe there are real gains to be made from focusing on staff attitudes and improving them. That has been achieved by much more visible management, clearer standards of care, clear expectations of staff and written material for prisoners.
Senior management commitment is essential to drive home that new culture of change that we all desire. It is clearly provided in this case. We have found that the most effective means of monitoring improvements is to develop an action plan in response to all of the 147 recommendations of the chief inspector and to monitor it on a regular basis. That has been done for Wandsworth.
I should like to draw out some of the elements of the detailed plan. Wandsworth is committed to delivering a user-friendly visits booking system—a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater; an effective strategy to meet the needs of foreign national prisoners—a matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Judd; a full commitment to the RESPOND (Race Equality for Staff and Prisoners) programme; more drug-free accommodation; more enhanced thinking skills courses and a revised education programme that will focus on basic skills.
My noble friends Lord Longford and Lord Graham, the noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, and the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the absence of a governor from September 1998 to February 1999. At the time, the then governor of Wandsworth was the best candidate to act as area manager. It is accepted that this was, with the benefit of hindsight, an unsuitable arrangement. Martin Narey has made it
1332
clear that no prison of Wandsworth's size, complexity and need for change will be left without a governor in this way. As a consequence, there was no gap last month between Mick Knight—the governor of Wandsworth until then—moving to head Norwich prison and the appointment and putting into place of Stephen Rimmer in moving from Gartree to take over at Wandsworth. I believe that that must be welcomed.
The current area manager for London South, Peter Atherton, has responsibility for a number of the largest and most complex prisons in the country. In recognition of that load, an additional area manager, David Waplington, is providing management support. The director general assures me that this means that there will be no lapse in senior support when Peter Atherton moves later this year, on promotion, to lead the high security estate.
My noble friend Lord Longford rightly asked about the senior management team supporting the governor at the prison. Some staff have changed. The team has been restructured to ensure a proper mix of skills. Moreover, some members of the previous senior management team have been replaced. The necessary commitment to change is there, from the new governor and his senior management team of Wandsworth, straight through the area manager to the director general.
The governor most recently met the local branch of the Prison Officers' Association last Wednesday. The POA is co-operating with the planned improvements to Wandsworth. The governor meets the POA branch every month. He also has regular meetings with all staff. The governor is quite clear that the POA committee will make a substantial contribution to the positive developments and that it will support the rooting out of any unprofessional behaviour in Wandsworth prison. I pay tribute to the commitment from the POA branch to the action plan.
Many noble Lords referred to other prisons. Last year, your Lordships debated the Government's response to the chief inspector's report on Feltham remand centre. In that report, the chief inspector expressed his understandable frustration that inadequate action had been taken in response to recommendations made in an earlier report. My noble and learned friend Lord Williams of Mostyn described that report as "bleak" and shared with noble Lords his shock at some of the findings.
It gives me great pleasure to report that a similar package—a solid senior management commitment, a comprehensive action plan and careful monitoring of its implementation—has produced marked improvements. Indeed, Sir David said that he now found Feltham to be,
"a very different place from the one we left nine months before".
He also said:
"The impressive commitment to change amongst management and staff, from top to bottom, is very noticeable. This confirms what I have said before, namely that there has always been a body of good staff, knowing what they want to and can do, but being denied the opportunity to do so for a variety of reasons".

1333
I believe that that response demonstrates exactly what can be achieved within the Prison Service. It shows what can be done. We must repeat that elsewhere. Wandsworth is obviously one of those places that is high on our list as regards a repeat of that performance.
Noble Lords will recognise that I have concentrated very much on the service's response to Sir David's report on Wandsworth. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, made reference to the noble Lord, Lord Laming. However, I am not likely to believe that the service only reacts when its failings are exposed by the chief inspector. Indeed, most importantly, when speaking about Feltham, Sir David said that,
"this degree of commitment to improving the treatment and conditions of young prisoners in Feltham should not only follow a bad inspection report; it must be built into the structure of the Prison Service as a matter of course".
Those are very wise words.
Strong management is the key to success and it must come from within the Prison Service. The director general is leading from the front with his personal commitment to change. The deputy director general has introduced rigorous arrangements for line managing prison establishments. To strengthen this development, the Government asked the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to chair a working group on targeted performance improvement, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Cope.
The service has made some significant advances in recent years, but there is a need to pull together and sharpen the focus of the work to tackle underperformance. The noble Lord will be able to draw on a range of skills and experience from within the service and from the wider world of business and the voluntary sector in order to develop a strategy to build effective local partnerships and establish prisons as resources for their communities. The Government have asked the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to report by 1st May 2000. That is a challenging time target but one which we feel must be met.
Many noble Lords made many points in the debate. I shall try to address some of those before I conclude. The noble Baroness, Lady Linklater, raised the issue of family contact development officers. I am pleased to be able to tell her that a family contact development officer is being piloted at Huntercombe Young Offenders Institution in Oxfordshire. That is an important development. I believe that she also made reference to the need to have adequate facilities to receive visitors. At Wandsworth a major refurbishment programme is under way to improve and brighten the access to the visiting area. The noble Baroness also referred to the gate area. We have taken a careful look al that. That point was raised in the report. A dedicated staff information room has now been provided and the POA posters and bulletins have been removed from the immediate gate area.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln raised the issue of a lack of chaplaincy facilities at Wandsworth. All prisoners now have the opportunity to exercise their statutory entitlement to religious provision. The chaplaincy team works well with a wide
1334
range of colleagues, including those involved in the Safe Ground Project that has been mentioned. The prison will continue to seek to maximise the numbers who attend Sunday services.
It is important that we try to focus on some of the other issues which have been raised in the debate. While I am not able to cover all of the points because time does not permit that, I undertake to write to noble Lords on some of the points that I have not been able to cover.
The chief inspector levelled serious criticism at the service and the conditions he found on his inspection. We accept that there are serious failings at Wandsworth. I have described the energy that is going into remedying those failings and the improvements that have already taken place. I also think that it is worth placing this report on one prison in context. It is significant that the chief inspector and the director general agree that Wandsworth is not another Wormwood Scrubs. By coincidence, the chief inspector has finished his follow-up inspection at Wormwood Scrubs. I cannot, of course, prejudge the report of that inspection which will be made to the Home Secretary, but I am confident that Sir David will have seen real change for the better. He described a "transformation" at Werrington, where his previous report had been extremely critical. There have been recent and good reports on Hatfield, Bullwood Hall, Huntercombe and Wayland. The chief inspector will return to Wandsworth in December, 12 months after his report. I am confident that he will find substantial improvements.
The Government do not deny that there are deep-seated problems with some prisons. However, we are encouraged by the evidence of the impact of our unique investment from April of last year of more than £220 million in improving prison regimes. As a result, drug misuse is falling, offenders released after completing offending behaviour programmes are not offending again and, perhaps most impressively, prisoners' employment chances are being transformed by a drive on literacy and numeracy which led to prisoners gaining more than 30,000 qualifications last year. These are improvements we can all take encouragement from. Much good can come from adverse criticism in reports such as that made at Wandsworth, and we must build on those improvements if we are to have a Prison Service which aspires to be the best.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association (Amendment of Rules) Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee without amendment.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before ten o'clock.

  Building Maintenance and Repairs: VAT
  Building Maintenance and Repairs: VAT
  Agriculture: Employment Figures
  Agriculture: Employment Figures
  Individual Asylum Applications, Debates in Parliament
  Individual Asylum Applications, Debates in Parliament
  Police Numbers
  Police Numbers
  Martin McGartland: Police Protection
  Martin McGartland: Police Protection
  Mike Tyson: Criminal Record of Member of Entourage
  Mike Tyson: Criminal Record of Member of Entourage
  Gambling Review Body: Appointment of Chairman
  Gambling Review Body: Appointment of Chairman
  Eurostar: South-west Regional Services
  Eurostar: South-west Regional Services
  Elections: Free Postal Deliveries
  Elections: Free Postal Deliveries
  Sheep Scab Control
  Sheep Scab Control
  Organophospate Sheep Dips: Endotoxins
  Organophospate Sheep Dips: Endotoxins
  Sheep: Withholding Period between Dipping and Shearing
  Sheep: Withholding Period between Dipping and Shearing
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips
  Organophosphate Sheep Dips
  Old Palace Yard Refurbishment
  Old Palace Yard Refurbishment